Liturgical Reform and the Mass of Paul VI

[NetNuncio]

jlw:

Archbishop Levada from San Fransisco has just been named the head of the CDF. What will this mean???

Probably not much…Levada and Benedict have been friends for some time and are fairly like-minded. Look for the CDF to be in good hands and for Levada to be named a Cardinal within the next year or so.

 

[rwoehmke]

TNT:

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.

.

Sorry for your feelings of bitterness but maybe use the baloney to make yourself a sandwich. I served mass from 3rd grade in 1943 till leaving college in 1958 and while it was not the general rule I have to tell you a fifteen minute mass was not only possible, it happened. Was the priest leaving out some of the prayers? Who knows. Hard to follow English at that speed let alone Latin.

 

[JimG]

OK, OK, it was my fault. Sometime in the early 60’s, I remember the diocese circulating a questionnaire to parishioners about the Mass. At the time, parts of the Mass had been put into English but the Offertory and Canon remained in Latin. I put down something to the effect that “the liturgy needs to loosen up a little.”

Shortly thereafter, the Mass was turned over to ICEL, which reconfigured it into that peculiar dry language known as ICEL English, and before long, we were singing Simon & Garfunkel songs during the offertory. “I take it back!” I wanted to say, but it was too late.

All I really wanted was the English out of my Latin-English missal! It was all a misunderstanding!

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

Dr. Bombay:

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?

Nope. Never. And I graduated from the University of Wisconsin (Madison, of course), not known as a bastion of contentment, and populated by many Catholics.

Did you ever hear any comments from priests indicating they wanted a change?

Nope. The only complaints about the Church I heard came from some members of my family who were addicted to Commonweal, and they always seemed attracted (for other reasons, not the Mass), to the Protestant communities that today are virtually down the drain.

Did you have a positive reaction to the new Mass when it was first celebrated in the early 70’s?

No. In the first place, it was changed in increments. I thought at the time (and still do), that the enthusiasts were juvenile and in many cases ignorant, not to say stupid… Apparently critical thinking had never been part of their education, and they all seemed to turn in lockstep and go marching off imbued with the challenge to “do their own things.”

Now, I find the most interesting thing is the history of how it all came down. With more time, I have found all sorts of interpretations. One does not have to be a conspiracy theorist to recongize the isms, ideologies and politics that first entered into the Council and, subsequently, the hijacking of same!

If you stay with your search for info, I guarantee it will be worth your time!

God bless,

Anna (old person!)

 

[Pariah_Pirana]

Deacon Ed:

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

My, my, how things change. I wonder if Pope JPII ever “ordered” Cardinal Mahony to follow the GIRM and RS?

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

rwoehmke:

I doubt that any of the Indult Masses celibrated today are low masses.

Wrong. If, indeed, you are in western Wisconsin, do attend a Tridentine Mass, at 11:30 on Sunday mornings at St. Augustine’s in South St. Paul. Most Sundays it is a Low Mass; occasionally a High Mass. I presume this Sunday (Pentecost), it will be high. Another reason for visiting is that one of the two priests permitted to say it in the St. Paul/Mpls. Archdiocese is Father Echert, famous as one of the EWTN experts. He is now pastor of that parish and Holy Trinity as well. A busy man, but not too busy for the Tridentine Mass.

Many people drive very long distances for this every week.

The High Mass is awe inspiring and beautiful, but in my opinion hardly worship for the common man.

:tsktsk: :tsktsk: Oh dear! I don’t believe you really meant that! Is that an insult to the “common man” of today as compared to the “common man” of the last 400 years? Or does it mean that the Tridentine was always too sophisticated for the “common man,” and today only a few of us - we who are the truly erudite - could possibly appreciate and benefit from it?

Better yet, tell me you meant to say something entirely different!

Blessings,

Anna

 

[rwoehmke]

Anna Elizabeth:

Wrong. If, indeed, you are in western Wisconsin, do attend a Tridentine Mass, at 11:30 on Sunday mornings at St. Augustine’s in South St. Paul. Most Sundays it is a Low Mass; occasionally a High Mass. I presume this Sunday (Pentecost), it will be high. Another reason for visiting is that one of the two priests permitted to say it in the St. Paul/Mpls. Archdiocese is Father Echert, famous as one of the EWTN experts. He is now pastor of that parish and Holy Trinity as well. A busy man, but not too busy for the Tridentine Mass.

Many people drive very long distances for this every week.

:tsktsk: :tsktsk: Oh dear! I don’t believe you really meant that! Is that an insult to the “common man” of today as compared to the “common man” of the last 400 years? Or does it mean that the Tridentine was always too sophisticated for the “common man,” and today only a few of us - we who are the truly erudite - could possibly appreciate and benefit from it?

Better yet, tell me you meant to say something entirely different!

Blessings,

Anna

By common man I meant people like my grandpa who left school in 3rd grade, my parents who never graduated from highschool and even myself with a Ph.D. who went to Catholic Schools through college and never had a single class on the Latin Language. I still have no more than maybe a half dozen or so words in Latin today. I am trying to say the Latin High Masses are like a concert for people like me. Good music, but otherwise practically incomprehensible. I know a little about Father Echert. He recorded the CD’s for a 28 week course on John’s Gospel that we had in our parish. I would agree, a very erudite man. Some folks from our parish do go to St. Agnes and or St Augustines for a treat. They speak well of the experience and a few go across the river as often as they can.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Chatter163:

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.

Is this Movement what Pius XII was warning against in his 1947 encyclical *Mediator Dei?

The liturgy of the early ages is worthy of veneration; but an ancient custom is not to be considered better, either in itself or in relation to later times and circumstances, just because it has the flavor of antiquity.

The desire to restore everything indiscriminately to its ancient condition is neither wise nor praiseworthy.

It would be wrong, for example, to want the altar restored to its ancient form of table; to want black eliminated from the liturgical colors, and pictures and statues excluded from our churches; to require crucifixes that do not represent the bitter sufferings of the Divine Redeemer.

This attitude is an attempt to revive the “archaeologism” to which the pseudo-synod of Pistoia [1794] gave rise; it seeks also to re-introduce the many pernicious errors which led to that synod and resulted from it and which the Church, in her capacity of watchful guardian of “the Deposit of Faith” entrusted to her by her Divine Founder, has rightly condemned. It is a wicked movement, that tends to paralyze the sanctifying and salutary action by which the liturgy leads the children of adoption on the path to their heavenly Father.

**
**Or, was the Holy Father concerned about other issues in that encyclical that had nothing to do with the Liturgical Movement?

Chatter163:

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.

So, although laymen may have appreciated the changes, it seems that the Liturgical Movement that ended up giving us the Mass of Paul VI was populated mainly by scholars and priests? Then how does this square with Vatican II’s Decree *Apostolicam Actuositatem?

As sharers in the role of Christ as priest, prophet, and king, the laity have their work cut out for them in the life and activity of the Church. Their activity is so necessary within the Church communities that without it the apostolate of the pastors is often unable to achieve its full effectiveness.

It seems to me that liturgical reform on the scale undertaken after the Council would require a huge amount of (name removed by moderator)ut from the laity and not just a few scholars and clerics. Otherwise, it directly contradicts the Council. Or am I missing something here?

 

[tpmjr42]

Chatter163:

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.

Interesting to see this as I have an original edition of the Manual of Prayers (ordered by the 3rd Plenary Council of Baltimore in 1889 - the same Council that created the Baltimore Catechism) and it contains both the Ordinary and the Canon of Holy Mass (pages 114-159) side-by-side like you find in a missal

In it are also “Instructions for Hearing Mass” (pages 84-89), which is brilliant to read. The final section of 3/4 of a page is entitled, “On the Manner of Hearing Mass.” What follows is that section word-for-word: I will bold some words for emphasis:

There are various methods of profitably hearing Mass. One method is, to follow the priest in the Ordinary of the Mass as contained in the Missal; joining with him, as far as the laity may, in the very words of the service, and uniting our intention with him in what he does as Priest for the people. To enable all persons, even those who do not understand Latin, to follow the service, translations of the Ordinary and Canon of the Mass have been made into almost all languages, and circulated by authority. Another method is to accompany the Priest through the different parts of the service with appropriate devotions, similar to those he is using and directed to the same general ends, uniting our intention with his, but not using or not confining ourselves to the words of the Ordinary. A third method is to apply the service to the purpose of meditation on the Life or Passion of our Lord, or on any other appropriate subject. Whatever be the method followed, our first care should be to recollect ourselves, by calling home our wandering thoughts, and taking them off from all other concerns. We should humble ourselves profoundly in the presence of God, in whose Temple we are; and represent to ourselves, by a lively Faith, the dread majesty of God, and humbly beg His mercy and grace, that we may participate in this Holy Sacrifice in a worthy and becoming manner.

One reason I re-typed that section is that it clearly shows that translations had been available since at least 1889. Also, I often hear that people said the Rosary or did private devotions because they didn’t know what was going on. A) that is only true is they didn’t care to follow along in the missal, and B) those who said the Rosary were clearly following a prescribed method of hearing Mass. Context is key.

What I have not heard explained is why a new rite was created instead of simply either saying the existing one in the vernacular? (translations already having been provided) or developing the older rite. I’m guessing that is why many people consider it “rammed down their throat” - it is simply a different Mass and the impression that the faithful were given (and still given in many dioceses) was that the old Mass was somehow now invalid.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I made my first Communion in 1957 and was confirmed in 1963. I was an altar boy before AND after VII. We were perfectly able to follow the Mass in both the “little” St. Joseph missals we got when we made our first Communions and from our “big” St. Joseph missals when we were confirmed (in the 6th grade). Morning (i.e. 6 o’clock am) masses lasted at least a 1/2 hr. This was “low” mass. It was pre-VII when my new parish split off from the old. Father said morning mass in his house (the rectory not having been built yet) and it was at least a 1/2 hr. with Father and me being the only attendants.

I perfectly remember the transition from TLM to the “new” mass and how unhappy everyone was. With a new parish being established, our first masses were in the local public gym (a big no-no today but OK back then). Then we met in the hall of the local country club and that’s when the Mass changed. In a way, my experience was a metaphor for the whole change. We went from our comfortable existing parish surroundings and proceeded on to the new. By the time the new church was consecrated in 1967 we went from a traditional church (rectangular) to church in a semi-circle. We went from Pange Lingua to They’ll know we are Christians by our love. There were a whole bunch of us who were teenagers who were not happy. It felt as if we were torn from our happy womb.

Thirty plus years later, I still miss the reverence that I felt as a child. And, as I have posted in other threads, when my cathedral parish celebrated it’s 200th anniversary in 1992, the cardinal archbishop of Lyon gave the apostolic blessing in Latin. How few responded. How few. In many many real ways, we threw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

tpmjr42:

What I have not heard explained is why a new rite was created instead of simply either saying the existing one in the vernacular? (translations already having been provided) or developing the older rite. I’m guessing that is why many people consider it “rammed down their throat” - it is simply a different Mass and the impression that the faithful were given (and still given in many dioceses) was that the old Mass was somehow now invalid.

Dear tpmjr42,

If you really want to know, do read The Rhine Flows into the Tiber by Father Ralph M. Wiltgen. It is published by TAN, and you can obtain it online. I suggest reading it at least twice, once to get the all-over flavor of the Council, and a second time to trace how such things as the liturgical changes that were OK’d by the Council were maneuvred through the procedings.

After that, it will be even more interesting to investigate how Sacrosanctum Councilium (or the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy), got hijacked by those who for a variety of reasons wanted radical change.

Meanwhile remember that Paul VI ran the rite past six or seven Protestant ministers to determine their satisfaction with it before giving his final “OK.” Right there is a clue!

Sad.

Blessings,

Anna

 

[usqueadmortem]

Dr. Bombay, you said:

“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.”

I beg to differ. It was accepted because Catholics were obedient. I have heard too many stories of people who were totally confused, and even stopped going to Mass because they were so angry over the changes. One Catholic who subsequently turned Quaker said “They pulled the rug out from under us”. Another commented on how scandalous the “girls parading around the sanctuary in short skirts nowadays” is.

Here’s the bottom line folks…the great Pius XII warned against and vehemently rejected most everything that Paul VI implemented. He warned of the “suicide of altering the liturgy”, he said the “day the Church goes back to the venacular is the day it goes back to the catacombs”, he warned againt the flood rising of those who would change the liturgy. And in doing this he emulated the minds of Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Benedict XV and Pius XI.
Please go back and read what he had to say!! Mediator Dei! Humani Generis!

Anyways, Pius X who presided over the glory days of the Catholic Liturgy WAS a liturgist and he, along with Dom Gueranger were the impetus for the “Liturgical movement”, which eventually led to Pope Paul’s Mass.

There were many theologians clamoring for change under the guise of the Liturgical Movement and this is exactly who Pius XII warned againt. Obviously, neither John XXIII nor Paul VI listened to him. They weren’t liturgists and they didn’t understand why Pius XII was so worried. They let the very men Pius XII warned against get the upper hand at Vatican II. Would Pius XII have a heart attack if he were alive today? Indeed he would…

I am not trying to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but we have to be realistic here folks. These pie in the sky views of “liturgical renewal” are not on the whole justifiable. Granted the Church is indefectible, and infallible, but how does the preclude the possibility of a better liturgy being replaced by a worse one? Pius XII treated it as a REAL possibility, and he was very worried.

In conclusion, the liturgy is arbited from “on high”. the Pope is the ultimate arbitor of the Liturgy, and if he is not a liturgist he takes his advice from theologians, not the laity. And if the Pope takes advice from bad liturgists, well…

Usque.

 

[tpmjr42]

Anna Elizabeth:

Dear tpmjr42,

If you really want to know, do read The Rhine Flows into the Tiber by Father Ralph M. Wiltgen. It is published by TAN, and you can obtain it online. I suggest reading it at least twice, once to get the all-over flavor of the Council, and a second time to trace how such things as the liturgical changes that were OK’d by the Council were maneuvred through the procedings.

After that, it will be even more interesting to investigate how Sacrosanctum Councilium (or the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy), got hijacked by those who for a variety of reasons wanted radical change.

Meanwhile remember that Paul VI ran the rite past six or seven Protestant ministers to determine their satisfaction with it before giving his final “OK.” Right there is a clue!

Sad.

Blessings,

Anna

Hi Anna,
You must’ve been reading my mind as I just ordered that book on Wednesday

 

[ddimitro]

I will only touch on the vernacular in the Mass.

As our catechism has slipped away, the study of Latin has no doubt gone out, too. That’s certainly why you hear so many clamoring today about how the Mass in English/vernacular is and was a blessing.

But the fact is: going back to before the early Church, there was always a liturgical language. At the Last Supper, the liturgical language of Hebrew was used, not the vernacular Aramaic.

Yes, there is something to be said about the abandonment of Latin in the liturgy (even though it is still permissible, I would bet there are many more TLMs than Latin NOs). Even Sacrosanctum Concilium made it clear that Latin was to remain the dominant language throughout the Mass, with only choice parts in the vernacular.

The vernacular is only one proof that the Mass has become more congregation-centered, and less God-centered. That’s dangerous and sad.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Dr. Bombay:

It seems to me that liturgical reform on the scale undertaken after the Council would require a huge amount of (name removed by moderator)ut from the laity and not just a few scholars and clerics. Otherwise, it directly contradicts the Council. Or am I missing something here?

What you’re missing is an acceptance that the Council and the “reforms of the Council” don’t always mesh. Simply comparing VII on liturgical reform with the present missal will show how that reform has far surpassed what was called for by the council. Liturgical reform was very much a product of a few clerics and scholars. The liturgical movement, while obviously involving laity in attendance, was not carried out in response to lay agitation for change.

 

[Frankie]

I’m a pre-conciliar ‘oldie’ and yes, there was a lot wrong with the practices around the Mass in the days of the Tridentine liturgy. Just some of these were; mumbling and rapid delivery by the priest; people coming in late by the droves because of the ruling that you had to be there by the Offertory or you’d missed Mass; people making private devotions and prayers, like the Rosary, during Mass; a lack of knowledge of the scriptures; a perception it was something done by the priest and ‘witnessed’ by the congregation.

I love the new Roman Rite when it is said properly. And I love the old Latin Mass, especially a sung Mass with Gregorian chant. I think the scandals around the liturgy have made faithful Catholics a lot more conscious of the meaning and sacredness of the Mass.

I’m really interested to hear what other oldies think!

 

[usqueadmortem]

Granted there were problems before the Vatican Council II, but I don’t think that was reason enough to overhaul the Mass. In fact there is no defensbile reason to overhaul the Mass, no matter what abuses were occuring or how itchy people were for change. In 1970 years, there was NEVER such a change as the one in 1970. Rather, organic and natural development occured over time. I’m sorry, but Bugnini’s reform was a BIG mistake.
With that said, I am off to Novus Ordo Mass!

Usque.

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Andreas Hofer:

What you’re missing is an acceptance that the Council and the “reforms of the Council” don’t always mesh. Simply comparing VII on liturgical reform with the present missal will show how that reform has far surpassed what was called for by the council. Liturgical reform was very much a product of a few clerics and scholars. The liturgical movement, while obviously involving laity in attendance, was not carried out in response to lay agitation for change.

OK, then how do we know when the Holy Spirit stops guiding the Church?

If the reforms encacted after an Ecumenical Council can diverge so radically from what was suggested by that Council, how can we Catholics have any confidence that the sure hand of the Holy Spirit is guiding our Church?

And who decides when the reforms have “gone too far?” Is it the Holy Father? Every post-conciliar Pope, including Benedict XVI, has pledged to carry out the mission of Vatican II or words to that effect. None of them have raised an alarm about the liturgical reform being too radical. While we must still wait and see with B16, does anyone think he’s going to attempt an even more radical “reform of the reform?”

On another issue, I’ve been avoiding books on the Mass by TAN. A few years ago, I read one of theirs called “The Problems with the New Mass” which upset me greatly. I’d appreciate a less polemic point of view on the new Mass and the reform, if anyone has suggestions.

 

[malcolm_davies]

I am fascinated that the withdrwal of latin from mainline Catholicism in the late 1960s was to coincide with charismatic renewal and then after that the taize movement.

My experience of both is that the vernacular mass lost a lot of the sense of the sacred & holy but that both the above movements emphasize the awsomeness of God. Taize chants are often in Latin.

 

[usqueadmortem]

Dr. Bombay,
Great questions!!
“OK, then how do we know when the Holy Spirit stops guiding the Church?”

The key is to p(name removed by moderator)oint when and how the Holy Ghost guides the Church!
A quick run down on the Mass as an example, in disciplinary measures, such as the external traditions of the Mass, there is no infallibilte protection of the Holy Ghost…So it is quite possible that an inferior external rite will be given to us in the future. But, the Holy Ghost guards the internal Tradition of the Mass. There is infallibilty there. It is essentially the same as the first Mass inwardly. That the Pope would promulgate an invalid sacriligious Mass is impossible.
But when it comes to the theology of the external traditions, there is where the debates are raging…

"If the reforms encacted after an Ecumenical Council can diverge so radically from what was suggested by that Council, how can we Catholics have any confidence that the sure hand of the Holy Spirit is guiding our Church? "

Because Holy Mother Church is Indefectable. You can be sure that whatever Rite is universally promulgated is valid and free of heresy in its original Latin edition. Translations, such as the ICEL one, however, do not enjoy that infallibility. But you CANNOT assume that it is a more pious or fullfilling external rite on that account.

“And who decides when the reforms have “gone too far?” Is it the Holy Father?”
Well, theologians I suppose. But the Holy Father is the ultimate arbitor of the liturgy, so it comes down to him in the final analysis, yes.

Hope this is of assistance.
God Bless.
Usque.

P.S. Sorry if I was polemical before, I fall into that habit…