Liturgical Reform and the Mass of Paul VI

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dr.Bombay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dr.Bombay

Guest
A similair question was raised a few weeks ago, but I don’t think it was approached from this angle. It’s a question I’ve been pondering for sometime. Why was the Mass changed? More specifically, who provided the impetus for the change (besides the Holy Spirit, of course)?

I’ve read Sacrosanctum Concilium. I understand the desire to speak to the people in their language and the “active participation” stuff. I can appreciate eliminating needless repetition and returning to a form of worship similair to the early Church. As I said, I also recognize the inspiration of the Holy Spirit working through the Church. I get all that. That’s not what I’m talking about.

I’m a post Vatican II baby myself, so I can’t speak from personal experience. But there must have been a great demand on the part of priests and the laity to make changes. I understand there was a liturgical reform movement within the Church that started sometime in the 19th Century. I don’t know who was involved in it primarily, but I can’t imagine the changes that eventually culminated in the Mass of Paul VI started from the top. In other words, there must have been a grass-roots movement of some type among the priests and laity to “reform” the Mass.

Some traditionalists portray the pre-Vatican II Church, especially in America, as some idealized wonderland where everyone walked in lockstep, everyone loved the Holy Father and everyone loved the Mass.

Somehow, I don’t think that’s the whole story. There must have been a lot of simmering dissatisfaction among the hoi polloi about the Mass.

So, I’d welcome some feedback from you old people. 😉 Do you recall people being upset and turned off by the Mass as it existed prior to the Council? Did you ever hear any comments from priests indicating they wanted a change? Did you have a positive reaction to the new Mass when it was first celebrated in the early 70’s?

Any comments or links are appreciated. :tiphat:
 
What I have to say is mostly anecdotal. My experience was that for the most part the laity, except the altar boys played a very passive role at Mass. The Latin Text was unintelligible to most people until about 1940 when the prohibition of translating the Mass into the vernacular was dropped. Hence the missal with English on one side and latin on the other became a reality. Even then a lot of people prayed the Rosary or other private prayers during Mass. It was about that same time when some dioceses started dialog Masses, the laity could respond in Latin to the extent of some of the shorter replies like Amen and Et cum spiritu to O. And we, especially as school children , were taught to sing some of the Ordinary( Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, and Agnes Dei )in Latin. I am just learning today because of the vernacular what some of the Latin I used as an altar boy actually said. A High Mass or a Solemn High Mass had a lot of beautiful vestments, pagentry and singing by the choir, but many of the Masses were low masses, no singing and lots of rapidly mumbled Latin. One could meet the obligation to attend Mass, depending on the priest, in as little as 15 minutes beginning to end .At least the High Masses were as interesting and entertaining as an opera in German or Italian. I doubt that any of the Indult Masses celibrated today are low masses. The High Mass is awe inspiring and beautiful, but in my opinion hardly worship for the common man. Like being able to listen to and enjoy Classical Music, which by the way includes some beautiful music composed by famous composers for use at Mass. These men were not infrequently paid by particular patron to write such music. People complain today about priests trying to perform for the congregation. In those good old days without intending to in my opinion that was just what they were doing. I still like a little Latin and Gregorian Chant, but it is more entertainment than worship. By the way I love Classical Music and some of the foreign language operas so not being a “long hair” is not the basis for my love of the Mass in English, no matter that some parts of the translation are so literal that they suck. I have kind of run on here, but I guess to summarize a lot of us old timers, not all by any means, wanted to understand and participate more fully. Did we think at the time that we would have any choice? I don’t think so. The vernacular came as a pleasant surprise.
 
Anectodal it may be, but it does confirm my suspicions. There was indeed a simmering discontent with the old Mass. This explains in my mind why the new Mass was so readily accepted. I knew it couldn’t just be a dictate from on high. It had to confirm the people in what they were feeling, i.e. the pre-Vatican II Masses weren’t worship for the common man and it had to be brought down to their level.

And I never knew missals couldn’t be translated into English before 1940. To hear some people tell it, those were always available. This is fascinating. I’ve learned much from your post. Thanks. :tiphat:
 
One could meet the obligation to attend Mass, depending on the priest, in as little as 15 minutes beginning to end
Click to expand...
BULLoney. Not even under combat field conditions!

The best one could do including the Std after-mass prayers of Jn’s Gospel, etc. would be 35min. Without the After-Mass Prayers it would be close to 31 min.

Now an NOM which I have frequently attended on weekdays is reverently done w/ a short sermon in 35 min also.

Since the TLM low Mass on Sunday requires a Sermon on the Readings, the best that could ever be done and still have a reverent Mass is 45 Min. The Avg today is 1.25. Hrs with Communion time.

Every time I see a post about the SINGULAR abuse of the TLM the record time sets yet another record! In 6 more months we’ll be down to 3 min.

If that is the only abuse one can post against the TLM vs the 12 or so against the NOM, we have a 12/1 lead in abuse in the NOM.

No, people were not language idiots in the prev 200 years. They could know Latin as well as we do today. Many were devout immigrants whose Mother tongue was a derivative of Latin. If one was an altar boy, and could not translate Latin prayers, shame on you. A minimum amount of interest would have solved the problem.
However, there were many more attendees on weekday Masses 100 yrs ago. consequently, in absolute numbers, there would be more who were not Latin savy. If you were raised in a typical Catholic school you had at least 2 yrs of Latin, and Mass twice/week to exercise it. If you slept through it… well.

Now, anything that is exposed to the public as mandatory, be it TLM or NOM, the hardcore rebels (clergy) will try to abuse it, belittle it, and try their best to destroy it.
For instance, if a priest, and there were quite a few, who wanted a more “ecumenical mass” in the 40’s and after. They didn’t get it. So, what do you think they would do to the TLM? Correct! Spit on it. Just like a spoiled 2-yr old. Fortunately, the only abuse they could get away with without the laity complaining in chorus was “speed reading” the TLM and getting it over with.

You could count on 1 hand the number of centuries where the Latin rite mass was a “community interactive” liturgy. and none with the level it is today in most parishes, to the point where if the crowd is not in attendance, the Mass is promoted as illicit.

I DO NOT want the TLM as the Latin Rite! IT would be butchered by the same rebels that butcher the NOM, and its Vernacular translations.
If the vernacular was the ony problem for the neanderthal laity, then why not just make the vernacular the standard of the TLM, and problem solved. We all know that would never satisfy an ecumenist hierarchy! Thus it was ditched for a NEW ecumenical orientation. The popes all have testified that such is the centerpiece of VATII. Therefore, the NOM is ecumenism oriented, just like the rest of the sacraments, catechism, and even canon law. Ecumenism is the driving force of the last 40 years in all changes in the church. Even the popes of that era admit it with enthusiasm.
 
Thanks for the response, TNT. I attend an indult Latin Mass on Sundays and Holy Days. I love the Mass and am interested in getting feedback from people who were there in the late 60s and early 70s.

You seem to be saying the new Mass was imposed on the people from an “ecumenist hierarchy.” This implies there wasn’t much support for the new Mass among the people in the pews. This is what is confusing me. The liturgical reform movement that started in the 19th Century must have been populated by lay people, and they must have made their voices very loudly heard. If I’m wrong and it was primarily a clerical reform movement, I find that somewhat troubling. Especially in the wake of Vatican II’s emphasis on the important role lay people play in the Church. What I’m saying is, if the new Mass, inspired by Vatican II, was imposed on the people without them really desiring it, that would seem to contradict one of the main themes of the Council.
 
Dr. Bombay

I was just a teenager through Vatican II. I graduated from highschool in 1965. I attended Catholic grade school through the 8th grade and public high school. My recollections then will be those of a young person without much insight into what the powers that be were up to.

As far as I knew, the changes were crammed down the throats of the laity and local priests. Our bishop at the time was very liberal in a very conservative diocese. Among my immediate and extended family (irish Catholic) few liked the changes or saw any good reason to make any changes. The liturgy, of course, is what all Catholics have in common and we could see our unity dying on the altar of relevance. Of course some people in the parish welcomed the changes. They had been agitating for years to “involve” the laity.

Thinking back, it seemed that the parish broke into probably four factions.

The first faction welcomed the changes and expected more changes. This was the group that just knew the church was going to modernize and birth control would be legalized. Eventually, when they didn’t get everything they wanted, some stayed in the church fighting a guerilla war. Some left to find a different church that would accomodate their beliefs.

Another group, consisting mainly of the very orthodox, did accept the changes with a minimum of griping. The older people, like my grandparents, fit into this group. They could not imagine themselves being disobedient. This was a group that looked upon the priesthood as being practically infallible. They took the changes in their stride.

A third faction, consisting mainly of people in my parents age group, veterans of WWII, marched along with the changes like good soldiers should. They adopted a wait and see attitude. Most went along with the changes until the abuses of the liturgy started happening. Things that had been mortal sins now became the norm. The priests were saying one thing from the pulpit and something quite different in the confessional. The church no longer seemed to be a rock, but rather a rock concert. Most went through the motions of being Catholic, but a large number just dropped out. Many, like my mother, have stayed dropped out.

The fourth grouping were the young people like me. Vatican II was supposed to modernize the church and make it relevant to the young, but most, if not all, of my friends found it fake. The liturgy became something that was like one of those beach movies from Hollywood. The mass was what a bunch of old bishops and cardinals thought the young would want, but we found it as out of touch as Annette at the beach. Good to look at, but not real. As you probably know, the 60s was a time of great upheavel. Most of us were worried about the draft, or how to pay for college. The world was changing and all we wanted was a sanctuary of sanity, like the Church. Instead the Church joined the insane changes of the regular world. I would guess that out of my 8th grade class of 40+ students, fewer than ten remained in the Church. Many, like myself, have come back to the church in recent years, but way too many young people started view the church as just a human institution, not a Godly institution.

For those who have been away for awhile, things got worse rather than better. Luckily, I found a TLM indult chapel that fits me to a “T”. In fact I took my Mother to mass at the chapel on Mothers Day and she was greatly impressed. Hopefully, as I have been praying, she will retur to the Church.
 
40.png
SnorterLuster:
Dr. Bombay

I was just a teenager through Vatican II. I graduated from highschool in 1965. I attended Catholic grade school through the 8th grade and public high school. My recollections then will be those of a young person without much insight into what the powers that be were up to.

As far as I knew, the changes were crammed down the throats of the laity and local priests. Our bishop at the time was very liberal in a very conservative diocese. Among my immediate and extended family (irish Catholic) few liked the changes or saw any good reason to make any changes. The liturgy, of course, is what all Catholics have in common and we could see our unity dying on the altar of relevance. Of course some people in the parish welcomed the changes. They had been agitating for years to “involve” the laity.

Thinking back, it seemed that the parish broke into probably four factions.

The first faction welcomed the changes and expected more changes. This was the group that just knew the church was going to modernize and birth control would be legalized. Eventually, when they didn’t get everything they wanted, some stayed in the church fighting a guerilla war. Some left to find a different church that would accomodate their beliefs.

Another group, consisting mainly of the very orthodox, did accept the changes with a minimum of griping. The older people, like my grandparents, fit into this group. They could not imagine themselves being disobedient. This was a group that looked upon the priesthood as being practically infallible. They took the changes in their stride.

A third faction, consisting mainly of people in my parents age group, veterans of WWII, marched along with the changes like good soldiers should. They adopted a wait and see attitude. Most went along with the changes until the abuses of the liturgy started happening. Things that had been mortal sins now became the norm. The priests were saying one thing from the pulpit and something quite different in the confessional. The church no longer seemed to be a rock, but rather a rock concert. Most went through the motions of being Catholic, but a large number just dropped out. Many, like my mother, have stayed dropped out.

The fourth grouping were the young people like me. Vatican II was supposed to modernize the church and make it relevant to the young, but most, if not all, of my friends found it fake. The liturgy became something that was like one of those beach movies from Hollywood. The mass was what a bunch of old bishops and cardinals thought the young would want, but we found it as out of touch as Annette at the beach. Good to look at, but not real. As you probably know, the 60s was a time of great upheavel. Most of us were worried about the draft, or how to pay for college. The world was changing and all we wanted was a sanctuary of sanity, like the Church. Instead the Church joined the insane changes of the regular world. I would guess that out of my 8th grade class of 40+ students, fewer than ten remained in the Church. Many, like myself, have come back to the church in recent years, but way too many young people started view the church as just a human institution, not a Godly institution.

For those who have been away for awhile, things got worse rather than better. Luckily, I found a TLM indult chapel that fits me to a “T”. In fact I took my Mother to mass at the chapel on Mothers Day and she was greatly impressed. Hopefully, as I have been praying, she will retur to the Church.
Click to expand...
Wow!
 
40.png
SnorterLuster:
As far as I knew, the changes were crammed down the throats of the laity and local priests.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm…I have much to learn. Where did I ever get the idea that the changes were being demanded by the people in the pews? You seem to be saying most people were content with the Mass and it was a small group of ankle-biters who welcomed the change. Do you know if your experience was common throughout the Church? I was really hoping someone would provide a link or a book recommendation about the liturgical changes and how and why they came about.

I hope your prayers for your mother bear fruit. Usually, it’s the mother praying for her wayward children (as I know my mother did for the many years of my misspent youth). :blessyou:
 
Dr. Bombay:
Hmmmm…I have much to learn. Where did I ever get the idea that the changes were being demanded by the people in the pews? You seem to be saying most people were content with the Mass and it was a small group of ankle-biters who welcomed the change. Do you know if your experience was common throughout the Church? I was really hoping someone would provide a link or a book recommendation about the liturgical changes and how and why they came about.
Click to expand...
I don’t know of any book, and I don’t know if my experience was common throughout the Church. It may have been an American experience only due to the Viet Nam war. i do know that recently I saw some figures on the Catholic population of Oklahoma. Year by year the population grew until the 1960s. In the 60s the Church quit growing and even shrunk a little. In the 70s, with the birth control statement by Pope Paul and the change in the liturgy the number of Catholics plumeted in Oklahoma. Just in the 2000 census did we return to the number of Catholics that we had in 1960 and most of that increase is due to the Mexican immigrants coming to the state.

Whatever Pope John XXIII thought the Council would accomplish, I don’t think it happened. I think I may speak for many Catholics, we just want our priest to tell us what to do. We have a simple faith that needs clear cut rules and consistency. it seems we have neither since Vatican II.
 
One question I had was do places like South America have these kinds of problems and abuses we have now? Because when I think about it, this situation might not be a problem in third world countries. If I had to guess the biggest battle is going on among those who are well off.
 
Catholic Dude:
One question I had was do places like South America have these kinds of problems and abuses we have now? Because when I think about it, this situation might not be a problem in third world countries. If I had to guess the biggest battle is going on among those who are well off.
Click to expand...
That’s an excellent point, Dude. There’s something about comfort and luxury that breeds contempt and allows people to focus on themselves to the exclusion of God. That’s why we see this obsession with hand holding, hand shaking, back slapping and irreverent gabbing before and during the Mass. It’s all about ME! :rolleyes:

Poverty and physical danger would tend to focus the mind on God.
 
The prohibition against vernacular translations of the Mass was lifted by Pope Leo XIII in 1897. This ushered in the era of the bilingual missal, with Latin on one side and the vernacular on the other.

To a large extent, this was a manifestation of the presence of the middle class, which only came about with the Industrial Revolution in the middle of the ninteenth century. Prior to that point, most literate folks could read and/or follow the Latin texts. There was little need for vernacular texts; if one could not follow Latin, one was probably illiterate, anyway. But the era saw working people learning to read in large numbers (a trend that had been very slowly building for centuries), and with that came the desire to follow the Mass more closely in a written form.

During this same time, enhanced scholarship in the Benedictine religious houses and, subsequently, seminaries and universities, formented the Liturgical Movement, which focused on a desire to rediscover the roots of the liturgy in patristic history, and to restore the clarity and focus of the Mass and Divine Office, which had accumulated many additional elements through the centuries. Leaders of this movement included Dom Prosper Gueranger and Lambert Beaudoin.

The movement spread into nations and dioceses, more in some places than others. Pope St. Pius X encouraged the movement, as did his successors. Dialogue Mass and the Pray the Mass missal movement of the twenties and thirties were a big part of this. In one sense the Movement can be said to have been originally a scholarly one whose influence eventually permeated parish life. In another context, people were generally very responsive wherever the Movement was introduced, and can be said to have appreciated and encouraged vernacular concessions as they were made.

Laymen and clergy who followed developments within the Church would probably not have been too surprised by many of the changes made in the Vatican II era, as requests from local bishops for vernacular prayers and hymns date back to the turn of the century. But most folks in the pew do not read clerical or scholarly journals, and therefore were quite surprised at their scope. Local parish clergy themselves were not always well informed. The issue is one of context.
 
40.png
rwoehmke:
What I have to say is mostly anecdotal. My experience was that for the most part the laity, except the altar boys played a very passive role at Mass. The Latin Text was unintelligible to most people until about 1940 when the prohibition of translating the Mass into the vernacular was dropped. Hence the missal with English on one side and latin on the other became a reality. Even then a lot of people prayed the Rosary or other private prayers during Mass. It was about that same time when some dioceses started dialog Masses, the laity could respond in Latin to the extent of some of the shorter replies like Amen and Et cum spiritu to O. And we, especially as school children , were taught to sing some of the Ordinary( Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, and Agnes Dei )in Latin. I am just learning today because of the vernacular what some of the Latin I used as an altar boy actually said. A High Mass or a Solemn High Mass had a lot of beautiful vestments, pagentry and singing by the choir, but many of the Masses were low masses, no singing and lots of rapidly mumbled Latin. One could meet the obligation to attend Mass, depending on the priest, in as little as 15 minutes beginning to end .At least the High Masses were as interesting and entertaining as an opera in German or Italian. I doubt that any of the Indult Masses celibrated today are low masses. The High Mass is awe inspiring and beautiful, but in my opinion hardly worship for the common man. Like being able to listen to and enjoy Classical Music, which by the way includes some beautiful music composed by famous composers for use at Mass…
Click to expand...
What a great posting from someone who was actually there. The following confirms your position:

"The Old Mass

Stop! Take off the rose-colored glasses and face a reality of 20/20 hindsight. I began serving “the old Mass” in 1939. I am now 73 years old, 45 years a priest, having begun my seminary studies in 1950. As a kid knowing the perfect recitation of all the Latin Mass responses, we dealt with mumbled praying of many priests. In the old days there were parishes that were known as “whiz churches”: Sunday Mass, in and out in 20 minutes.

Young priests were told the motto: “Get them out fast”. In college I was too embarrassed to invite my dormitory roommates to Sunday Mass - the blatant lack of piety was a scandal. Rarely do I look back and remember edifying experiences as being the norm. But, yes, there were some.

In my experience today the gains outshine the losses. Yes, I know where craziness exists and horror stories are a fact. But the gains were tremendous. Yes, we are still growing/becoming what we should be. Change begets excesses – the pendulum swings from one extreme to the other, yet eventually resting in the middle… The recent writings and promulgations of our Holy Father give us hope, e.g., the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (USCCB Website), Sacrosanctum Concilium, and Ecclesia de Eucharistia.

Don’t despair. If there is craziness in your parish, pray for your bishop, write lovingly to the offending priest and copy it to the diocesan liturgical committee. Don’t you be crazy too – document accurately the observation of misdirection.

Having been a pastor for 27 years, in a variety of multicultural parishes, I have witnessed, in these changing times, the evolution of a profoundly rich contemporary Mass that is celebrated within the rules.

Would I go back to pre-Vatican II days? No way. I reverence the past, but live and work in the richness of the present, championing orthodoxy and “working to beat hell!”

Be patient. Treat all with charity, pray unceasingly and know that truth will conquer. As the Adoremus Bulletin tells us: “The Holy Father asks bishops and liturgists to build on the ‘riches’ of the reform while also pruning ‘serious abuses’ with ‘prudent firmness’”. (“The Foundations of Liturgical Reform”, March 2004)

Father Andre J. Meluskey
Senior Priest, St. Patrick Church
Carlisle, Pennsylvania"

adoremus.org/0704ReadersForum.html****
 
40.png
SnorterLuster:
I don’t know of any book, and I don’t know if my experience was common throughout the Church. It may have been an American experience only due to the Viet Nam war. i do know that recently I saw some figures on the Catholic population of Oklahoma. Year by year the population grew until the 1960s. In the 60s the Church quit growing and even shrunk a little. In the 70s, with the birth control statement by Pope Paul and the change in the liturgy the number of Catholics plumeted in Oklahoma. Just in the 2000 census did we return to the number of Catholics that we had in 1960 and most of that increase is due to the Mexican immigrants coming to the state.

Whatever Pope John XXIII thought the Council would accomplish, I don’t think it happened. I think I may speak for many Catholics, we just want our priest to tell us what to do. We have a simple faith that needs clear cut rules and consistency. it seems we have neither since Vatican II.
Click to expand...
Are you speaking of Humane Vitae? I know of few things that are as clear-cut and consistant than the Church’s stance on artificial contraception…
 
Just a couple of quick comments here. As an altar server in during the Tridentine Mass era I can recall w*eekday *Masses that took 15 minutes. Sunday Masses generally ran 45 minutes to an hour (the shorter Mass would occur as we approached noon since fewer people went to communion).

The changes were asked for by the bishops based upon their observations of what was happening “in th pews.” The decline in Mass attendance that we see in the United States was already happening in Europe (I well remember going to Mass in Germany and Holland in the mid 60’s when there were fewer than 100 people on a Sunday!). People were doing private devotions during Mass, especially the “little-old-lay and the rosary”. In general, eople were not into the Mass. The bishops were concerned that the priests were becoming sacramental Pez machines.

So, there were changes to the Mass and, yes, they were pretty much rammed down the throats of the people – but the people were generally quite receptive of the changes. Where I live was, at the time, in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles (Orange became a separate diocese in 1976) and Cardinal McIntyre was diametrically opposed to the changes and refused to allow them until Rome ordered him to do so. As a result, Los Angeles was quite a ways behind the rest of the universe.

Deacon Ed
 
To add on to the OP,

So for those who grew up in the preV2 days, when you say it was “shoved down out throats”, what do you mean? Did you show up to mass one day and think you were in a different country? Was there a sudden shift in every aspect of the Mass or little by little “forced upon you”? Did the priest all of the sudden say dont kneel for Communion?, etc
 
Deacon Ed wrote:
Just a couple of quick comments here. As an altar server in during the Tridentine Mass era I can recall weekday Masses that took 15 minutes. Sunday Masses generally ran 45 minutes to an hour (the shorter Mass would occur as we approached noon since fewer people went to communion).
Click to expand...
I can also attest to the quickness of some priests in the “good old days” when the Mass (for some) was, indeed, as described: “the blessed mutter of the Mass.” Rapid fire slurring, I would say!

I was born in 1934 and served the local Bishop of Sale (and his diocesan priests) at St Mary’s Cathedral, Sale, Victoria, Australia.

But, even in the 1970’s plus, a “traditional” Vincentian in Australia, who is associated with the SSPX, through an affliction of scruples, like a machine-gun slur the words: “Hiiicccckkkkk eeesssstttttt Corrrrrpusssss Meeeuummmmm.”

Not very edifying!
 
The rate of change varied from diocese to diocese, though all changes were made between fall, 1964 and fall, 1969. The transformation from the Tridentine to current missal was made in less than five years, which is astonishing.

For many American Catholics, the free-standing altar (the biggest change of all, IMHO, even more so than Latin to the vernacular) began to appear on the First Sunday of Advent, 1964, the same Sunday on which vernacular readings were permitted as the sole Mass lections. Concelebration was also permitted in 1965. Within three months, several other parts of the Mass were modified, and by January, 1966, much of the Mass was in the vernacular. The Canon of the Mass permitted in the vernacular and out loud (another huge change) in October, 1967. The following summer saw the release of the three additional eucharistic prayers, and the lectionary and final reforms were announced in the spring of 1969, to be effective the following liturgical year.

So for many people, they did indeed walk in one Sunday and begin to have vasty different experiences at the neighborhood parish church.
 
Pariah Pirana:
Are you speaking of Humane Vitae? I know of few things that are as clear-cut and consistant than the Church’s stance on artificial contraception…
Click to expand...
What I was referring to with the birth control comment was a large number of young women in particular were sure that the Church would allow artificial birth control. The Pope’s announcement was clear and many of the young women quit at that time.
 
Archbishop Levada from San Fransisco has just been named the head of the CDF. What will this mean???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top