Music in the new translation of the Mass

[TheMc]

Reading all the posts of many who vastly overrate what their musical contributions bring to the prayerful experience of the liturgy (which is what it is all about) reminds me of a beautiful Sunday mass I attended a few years ago in Cambridge, Mass. while visiting for a college graduation. There literally were more of my family in attendance than there were locals - it being an area where the self-proclaimed short-armed elites walked the pavements whose arms weren’t long enough to grasp the idea, let alone the reality, of “God”.
Anyway, there was no music whatsoever - it reminded me of the 6:15 daily masses I served for several years as a youth. It was beautiful. The priest was a prayerful man and the mass had a perfect flow to it as a continuum of its basic verbal elements - its prayers. Kind of like reaching “REM Sleep Level” when you go to bed to truly experience sleep - only with prayer. No abrupt musical interludes which all too often nowadays do exactly the opposite of their intended purpose (i.e. the enhancement of the mass). Better without, sad to say, but true.

Well, that is what happens when you put in all these non-liturgical songs, and folk Mass ordinaries. Hate to say I told ya so, but…

Chant and polyphony also allow one to enter this deep prayer. Probably not at first, but after you get used to it (like any change), they are very conducive to prayer, especially chants like melismatic offertories or graduals. Ah. Sublime, sublime.

Anyone else feel the same way? Tell the world!

 

[pnewton]

Reading all the posts of many who vastly overrate what their musical contributions bring to the prayerful experience of the liturgy.

This seems rather inappropriate. No one has been bragging about themselves. If you just prefer a Mass with no music, that is your preference, not a reality. No one can judge the Masses that other attend, or their parishes over the internet, using only their personal tastes. The Catholic Church recognizes the value of music, even if you do not like it.

 

[30miller]

This seems rather inappropriate. No one has been bragging about themselves. If you just prefer a Mass with no music, that is your preference, not a reality. No one can judge the Masses that other attend, or their parishes over the internet, using only their personal tastes. The Catholic Church recognizes the value of music, even if you do not like it.

I don’t “judge over the internet”. This past year, for example, I attended mass in at least 15 different churches I can think of in 5 different states. And that’s a pretty average year for me. And still the most memorable experience of prayer in the mass occurred at one with no music a few years ago. That’s a fact - not an internet pipe dread. And that fact is very appropriate. When music does not serve it’s intended purpose of enhancing the liturgy (ofttimes the opposite) it should be omitted for the betterment of the churchgoers in the pews. That should be a wake-up call to those in the music “ministry” to get their acts together.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t “judge over the internet”. This past year, for example, I attended mass in at least 15 different churches I can think of in 5 different states. And that’s a pretty average year for me. And still the most memorable experience of prayer in the mass occurred at one with no music a few years ago. …That should be a wake-up call to those in the music “ministry” to get their acts together.

Why should the experience of one person who does not attend their parish be a “wake-up call”? Personally, I only serve those at my own parish. I don’t mean to say anyone’s experience is less than others, but the Church relies on subsidiarity so that each parish is served according to its means. Music is traditionally a form and aid to prayer, though I am all for meeting the needs of those that prefer no music to the extent feasible.

 

[30miller]

Why should the experience of one person who does not attend their parish be a “wake-up call”? Personally, I only serve those at my own parish. I don’t mean to say anyone’s experience is less than others, but the Church relies on subsidiarity so that each parish is served according to its means. Music is traditionally a form and aid to prayer, though I am all for meeting the needs of those that prefer no music to the extent feasible.

??? One person who does not attend their parish??? Some may be lucky enough to make a living within a block of their parish - and some of us have required travel as part of our jobs, travel which at times includes weekends until the installations we are responsible for are up and running. Besides, that still leaves 30+ Sundays at my home parish. What’s with the venomous ad hominem?
And anyone who thinks it’s “one person” who thinks this definitely needs to get out more. Ditto for any who think they are “serving those at their parish”. Reminds me of all the public “servants” in DC. Self-proclaimed “servants”. Spare me, O Lord.
Subsidiarity is not an excuse for license to do anything one chooses. Besides, it states that responsibility resides at the lowest competent level, not just the lowest level (i.e. in this case the parish). Sadly, too many music “ministers” have no clue that their folk/pop selections in fact work against the prayer experience (i.e. talking to God) instead of enhancing it as is intended by the Church. They simply do not get that music at mass is meant to be consubstantial with the rest of the spoken liturgy.

 

[pnewton]

And anyone who thinks it’s “one person” who thinks this definitely needs to get out more.

I get out plenty. It is precisely why I consider your point of view to be virtual non-existent at my parish. Disparage subsidiarity as much as you want, but I do serve my parish and not posters here and their particular needs, not the tastes of those elsewhere. The use of scare quotes when you posted “serving those at their parish” and comparing those that do give of their time with public servants in D.C. is downright mean, uncharitable and judgmental. You do not know me, or any of the other fine music ministers here, enough to go insulting us.

I apologize if you consider it venom that I do not give your opinion any credence in what I do, but surely you understand that I have my hands full meeting the needs of people actual in my parish.

This whole thread is based on the fact that the change in the Mass translation has come with instructions and guidelines as to the changes musicians are to make. Here we are doing exactly as we are told, and we are criticized because we don’t abandon all music? The Catholic Church is not anti-music, never has been, and never will be.

The professional music companies have actually made great strides in this transition, making sure that all the words follow the new texts exactly, which is something that they have not always done in the past.

 

[30miller]

I get out plenty. It is precisely why I consider your point of view to be virtual non-existent at my parish. Disparage subsidiarity as much as you want, but I do serve my parish and not posters here and their particular needs, not the tastes of those elsewhere. The use of scare quotes when you posted “serving those at their parish” and comparing those that do give of their time with public servants in D.C. is downright mean, uncharitable and judgmental. You do not know me, or any of the other fine music ministers here, enough to go insulting us.

I apologize if you consider it venom that I do not give your opinion any credence in what I do, but surely you understand that I have my hands full meeting the needs of people actual in my parish.

This whole thread is based on the fact that the change in the Mass translation has come with instructions and guidelines as to the changes musicians are to make. Here we are doing exactly as we are told, and we are criticized because we don’t abandon all music? The Catholic Church is not anti-music, never has been, and never will be.

The professional music companies have actually made great strides in this transition, making sure that all the words follow the new texts exactly, which is something that they have not always done in the past.

God bless you, pnewton. Happy New Year!

 

[Filii_Dei]

The professional music companies have actually made great strides in this transition, making sure that all the words follow the new texts exactly, which is something that they have not always done in the past.

Yes indeed! I am especially glad about this. Now I can really dwell upon the words of the texts without it being needlessly paraphrased to suit whatever tune they set it to.

 

[ProVobis]

The professional music companies have actually made great strides in this transition, making sure that all the words follow the new texts exactly, which is something that they have not always done in the past.

The ironic part is that when the Mass was in Latin, the vernacular music didn’t have this restriction.

I wonder if they could bring back Peter Jones’ Glory to God as the opening hymn to a Latin OF.

 

[TheMc]

The professional music companies have actually made great strides in this transition, making sure that all the words follow the new texts exactly, which is something that they have not always done in the past.

Well, mostly. In one of the OCP glorias, there’s an added phrase. Well, it’s actually a tricky repition with “and on earth peace to people of good will” and they end up inserting “peace on earth” by cleverly combining repeated words with the musical phrases…while it may be technically licit, if you hear it, you’d swear they just added the phrase.

And then with the MOC from GIA, they still persist in selling those cheap, clearly illicit accompiniments to the eucharistic prayer. Ugh…

But I do agree that they are doing better than they’ve ever done in the past.

 

[Anthony_V]

The ironic part is that when the Mass was in Latin, the vernacular music didn’t have this restriction.

I wonder if they could bring back Peter Jones’ Glory to God as the opening hymn to a Latin OF.

I’d like to see a latin NO. There’s such a huge gap between the NO and TLM. One who isn’t educated in the matter wouldn’t think they are attending another Catholic church. I certainly don’t want a watering down of the TLM, nor do I think any faithful Catholic would in any circumstance. I think the solution would be to pamper up the NO.

In addition to all this, I think the layman is starting to figure out that the:
a) effectiveness of evangelization/ecumenism
b) amount of religious vocations
c) exhibition/respect of liturgical tradition
d) quality of catechesis
are all connected in an extremely intimate fashion. Notice how when Bl.JPII started to promulgate the importance of the TLM in Ecclesia Dei and when Pope Benedict declared the Summorum Pontificum, all of these things started to move their gears a bit faster. Especially vocations, may I add. I am honored to be a part of such vocation movement among the “youngsters”.

 

[Filii_Dei]

I’d like to see a latin NO. There’s such a huge gap between the NO and TLM. One who isn’t educated in the matter wouldn’t think they are attending another Catholic church. I certainly don’t want a watering down of the TLM, nor do I think any faithful Catholic would in any circumstance. I think the solution would be to pamper up the NO.

There is. Watch the Holy Father’s Christmas Mass.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I’d like to see a latin NO. There’s such a huge gap between the NO and TLM. One who isn’t educated in the matter wouldn’t think they are attending another Catholic church. I certainly don’t want a watering down of the TLM, nor do I think any faithful Catholic would in any circumstance. I think the solution would be to pamper up the NO.

In addition to all this, I think the layman is starting to figure out that the:
a) effectiveness of evangelization/ecumenism
b) amount of religious vocations
c) exhibition/respect of liturgical tradition
d) quality of catechesis
are all connected in an extremely intimate fashion. Notice how when Bl.JPII started to promulgate the importance of the TLM in Ecclesia Dei and when Pope Benedict declared the Summorum Pontificum, all of these things started to move their gears a bit faster. Especially vocations, may I add. I am honored to be a part of such vocation movement among the “youngsters”.

Then watch and you shall be amazed: player.rv.va/vaticanplayer.asp?language=it&tic=VA_4945UOHA

That was Pope Benedict’s Mass for the Solemnity today. That wasn’t even a particularly spectacular one either. If you’ve ever seen a Christmas or Easter Vigil Papal Mass, then you know what a spectacular Novus Ordo looks like. Soooooooo much TLM is seeping into the Papal Masses nowadays. The silver trumpets, something abolished after VII in Papal Masses, have returned. In the last several Papal Masses, Tu es Petrus is sung before the introit, a tradition restored. Alas, they used a responsorial psalm (meh), but for Christmas mass they used the traditional gradual. A gradual! Nobody does graduals in the OF. If you watch how the Pope incenses, he uses the TLM rubrics. Look at the Roman chasubles and giant mitres. I admit, he doesn’t wear a Roman chasuble at every mass, but you never saw Pope John Paul II in a Roman chasuble, save early in his Pontificate. I like how the deacon gives a Latin introduction before every Prayer of the Faithful, which are in the vernacular of course, and then how the dialogue after each is also in Latin. Speaking of deacons, I’m not sure if they were used in JPII’s Pontificate, but the Cardinal Deacons are present in most of Benedict’s Masses.

The only thing in that Mass that I can find that isn’t traditional to the Roman Rite is the use of Penitential Act B, but that’s just a little concession. I imagine the Papal Celebrations office designed that Mass, as that’s their job, and chose that themselves. Idk.

Anyways, that is a Baroqueified, pampered up Novus Ordo.

 

[TheMc]

Then watch and you shall be amazed: player.rv.va/vaticanplayer.asp?language=it&tic=VA_4945UOHA

That was Pope Benedict’s Mass for the Solemnity today. That wasn’t even a particularly spectacular one either. If you’ve ever seen a Christmas or Easter Vigil Papal Mass, then you know what a spectacular Novus Ordo looks like. Soooooooo much TLM is seeping into the Papal Masses nowadays. The silver trumpets, something abolished after VII in Papal Masses, have returned. In the last several Papal Masses, Tu es Petrus is sung before the introit, a tradition restored. Alas, they used a responsorial psalm (meh), but for Christmas mass they used the traditional gradual. A gradual! Nobody does graduals in the OF. If you watch how the Pope incenses, he uses the TLM rubrics. Look at the Roman chasubles and giant mitres. I admit, he doesn’t wear a Roman chasuble at every mass, but you never saw Pope John Paul II in a Roman chasuble, save early in his Pontificate. I like how the deacon gives a Latin introduction before every Prayer of the Faithful, which are in the vernacular of course, and then how the dialogue after each is also in Latin. Speaking of deacons, I’m not sure if they were used in JPII’s Pontificate, but the Cardinal Deacons are present in most of Benedict’s Masses.

The only thing in that Mass that I can find that isn’t traditional to the Roman Rite is the use of Penitential Act B, but that’s just a little concession. I imagine the Papal Celebrations office designed that Mass, as that’s their job, and chose that themselves. Idk.

Anyways, that is a Baroqueified, pampered up Novus Ordo.

I totally agree with you on how wonderful our holy father’s liturgies are, but I’m going to be nit-picky today. It always bugs me when people speak of the OF celebrated well as “like the EF” or “copying the EF” or “making it like the EF”, etc, etc, as if the OF were intrinsically not good enough. Well, technically, they are correct, but that way of thinking of is not correct and can have consequences. What is really happening at these Masses is the OF is being celebrated as it should be. Besides the obvious things like chant, the gradual, vestments, here’s one small example that illustrates my point perfectly: the chalice veil:

Most traditional priests (in my area, but I’d imagine this is pretty universal) use them, at least some of the time in the OF. Yet what does the GIRM say about them?

“It is a praiseworthy practice for the chalice to be covered with a veil”

See? The GIRM assumes you would use one if you have one, although it does not require it. And to make my point stronger, let’s look at a few other things the GIRM calls “praiseworthy:”

• Having an offertory procession (as opposed to starting with the gifts on the credence table)
• Placing the Book of the Gospels on the Altar during the Liturgy of the Word

These things happen at most parishes, so why not the veiled chalice? The point I’m trying to make is that most or all of these things are not copying the EF, they are celebrating the OF as it was and is intended to be celebrated.

And don’t even get me started on using chant or even latin. Same exact situation with those two as well.

When we think of it as “copying the EF,” then when people see it, that’s what they think of: copying the EF. Then they turn around and say or think “That’s nice and all, but I just want a normal OF, not this EF copycat style of OF,” and they go back to their parish where the liturgy is an informal conversation over a communal meal with Jesus.

Does this make sense to anyone, or should I elaborate more? Do you understand what I’m trying to say?

 

[TheMc]

Then watch and you shall be amazed: player.rv.va/vaticanplayer.asp?language=it&tic=VA_4945UOHA

That was Pope Benedict’s Mass for the Solemnity today. That wasn’t even a particularly spectacular one either. If you’ve ever seen a Christmas or Easter Vigil Papal Mass, then you know what a spectacular Novus Ordo looks like. Soooooooo much TLM is seeping into the Papal Masses nowadays. The silver trumpets, something abolished after VII in Papal Masses, have returned. In the last several Papal Masses, Tu es Petrus is sung before the introit, a tradition restored. Alas, they used a responsorial psalm (meh), but for Christmas mass they used the traditional gradual. A gradual! Nobody does graduals in the OF. If you watch how the Pope incenses, he uses the TLM rubrics. Look at the Roman chasubles and giant mitres. I admit, he doesn’t wear a Roman chasuble at every mass, but you never saw Pope John Paul II in a Roman chasuble, save early in his Pontificate. I like how the deacon gives a Latin introduction before every Prayer of the Faithful, which are in the vernacular of course, and then how the dialogue after each is also in Latin. Speaking of deacons, I’m not sure if they were used in JPII’s Pontificate, but the Cardinal Deacons are present in most of Benedict’s Masses.

The only thing in that Mass that I can find that isn’t traditional to the Roman Rite is the use of Penitential Act B, but that’s just a little concession. I imagine the Papal Celebrations office designed that Mass, as that’s their job, and chose that themselves. Idk.

Anyways, that is a Baroqueified, pampered up Novus Ordo.

I totally agree with you on how wonderful our holy father’s liturgies are, but I’m going to be nit-picky today. It always bugs me when people speak of the OF celebrated well as “like the EF” or “copying the EF” or “making it like the EF”, etc, etc, as if the OF were intrinsically not good enough. Well, technically, they are correct, but that way of thinking of is not correct and can have consequences. What is really happening at these Masses is the OF is being celebrated as it should be. Besides the obvious things like chant, the gradual, vestments, here’s one small example that illustrates my point perfectly: the chalice veil:

Most traditional priests (in my area, but I’d imagine this is pretty universal) use them, at least some of the time in the OF. Yet what does the GIRM say about them?

“It is a praiseworthy practice for the chalice to be covered with a veil”

See? The GIRM assumes you would use one if you have one, although it does not require it. And to make my point stronger, let’s look at a few other things the GIRM calls “praiseworthy:”

• Having an offertory procession (as opposed to starting with the gifts on the credence table)
• Placing the Book of the Gospels on the Altar during the Liturgy of the Word

These things happen at most parishes, so why not the veiled chalice? The point I’m trying to make is that most or all of these things are not copying the EF, they are celebrating the OF as it was and is intended to be celebrated.

And don’t even get me started on using chant or even latin. Same exact situation with those two as well.

When we think of it as “copying the EF,” then when people see it, that’s what they think of: copying the EF. Then they turn around and say or think “That’s nice and all, but I just want a normal OF, not this EF copycat style of OF,” and they go back to their parish where the liturgy is an informal conversation over a communal meal with Jesus.

That’s why it bugs me when people talk about a traditional OF Mass as if it had all these “EF things” imposed upon it. That’s completely the wrong way of looking at it.

Does this make sense to anyone, or should I elaborate more? Do you understand what I’m trying to say?

 

[liturgyluver]

Then watch and you shall be amazed: player.rv.va/vaticanplayer.asp?language=it&tic=VA_4945UOHA

That was Pope Benedict’s Mass for the Solemnity today. That wasn’t even a particularly spectacular one either. If you’ve ever seen a Christmas or Easter Vigil Papal Mass, then you know what a spectacular Novus Ordo looks like. Soooooooo much TLM is seeping into the Papal Masses nowadays. The silver trumpets, something abolished after VII in Papal Masses, have returned. In the last several Papal Masses, Tu es Petrus is sung before the introit, a tradition restored. Alas, they used a responsorial psalm (meh), but for Christmas mass they used the traditional gradual. A gradual! Nobody does graduals in the OF. If you watch how the Pope incenses, he uses the TLM rubrics. Look at the Roman chasubles and giant mitres. I admit, he doesn’t wear a Roman chasuble at every mass, but you never saw Pope John Paul II in a Roman chasuble, save early in his Pontificate. I like how the deacon gives a Latin introduction before every Prayer of the Faithful, which are in the vernacular of course, and then how the dialogue after each is also in Latin. Speaking of deacons, I’m not sure if they were used in JPII’s Pontificate, but the Cardinal Deacons are present in most of Benedict’s Masses.

The only thing in that Mass that I can find that isn’t traditional to the Roman Rite is the use of Penitential Act B, but that’s just a little concession. I imagine the Papal Celebrations office designed that Mass, as that’s their job, and chose that themselves. Idk.

Anyways, that is a Baroqueified, pampered up Novus Ordo.

Wonderful images, I agree, and very moving to see the Holy Father as always but I can’t believe how bad the Sistine Chapel Choir sound. Goodness me - I have heard more tuneful and stirring music from a choir of 8 in a small central London church. I have visited Rome twice and both times the choir were bad - I am sorry to see that they haven’t improved.

 

[Anthony_V]

I totally agree with you on how wonderful our holy father’s liturgies are, but I’m going to be nit-picky today. It always bugs me when people speak of the OF celebrated well as “like the EF” or “copying the EF” or “making it like the EF”, etc, etc, as if the OF were intrinsically not good enough. Well, technically, they are correct, but that way of thinking of is not correct and can have consequences. What is really happening at these Masses is the OF is being celebrated as it should be. Besides the obvious things like chant, the gradual, vestments, here’s one small example that illustrates my point perfectly: the chalice veil:

Most traditional priests (in my area, but I’d imagine this is pretty universal) use them, at least some of the time in the OF. Yet what does the GIRM say about them?

“It is a praiseworthy practice for the chalice to be covered with a veil”

See? The GIRM assumes you would use one if you have one, although it does not require it. And to make my point stronger, let’s look at a few other things the GIRM calls “praiseworthy:”

• Having an offertory procession (as opposed to starting with the gifts on the credence table)
• Placing the Book of the Gospels on the Altar during the Liturgy of the Word

These things happen at most parishes, so why not the veiled chalice? The point I’m trying to make is that most or all of these things are not copying the EF, they are celebrating the OF as it was and is intended to be celebrated.

And don’t even get me started on using chant or even latin. Same exact situation with those two as well.

When we think of it as “copying the EF,” then when people see it, that’s what they think of: copying the EF. Then they turn around and say or think “That’s nice and all, but I just want a normal OF, not this EF copycat style of OF,” and they go back to their parish where the liturgy is an informal conversation over a communal meal with Jesus.

That’s why it bugs me when people talk about a traditional OF Mass as if it had all these “EF things” imposed upon it. That’s completely the wrong way of looking at it.

Does this make sense to anyone, or should I elaborate more? Do you understand what I’m trying to say?

I understand what you’re saying. In retrospect, I can see how most people find the OFM to have a low liturgical “standard”; when really, it is the presiders that might have (even out of good intention) placed a standard lower than exemplary. I attend both OFM and TLM, and there are uniquely wonderful things about both when they are celebrated correctly. The OFM is a great evangelization tool when used properly. Surely, that was the point of V2.

 

[Anthony_V]

Then watch and you shall be amazed: player.rv.va/vaticanplayer.asp?language=it&tic=VA_4945UOHA

That was Pope Benedict’s Mass for the Solemnity today. That wasn’t even a particularly spectacular one either. If you’ve ever seen a Christmas or Easter Vigil Papal Mass, then you know what a spectacular Novus Ordo looks like. Soooooooo much TLM is seeping into the Papal Masses nowadays. The silver trumpets, something abolished after VII in Papal Masses, have returned. In the last several Papal Masses, Tu es Petrus is sung before the introit, a tradition restored. Alas, they used a responsorial psalm (meh), but for Christmas mass they used the traditional gradual. A gradual! Nobody does graduals in the OF. If you watch how the Pope incenses, he uses the TLM rubrics. Look at the Roman chasubles and giant mitres. I admit, he doesn’t wear a Roman chasuble at every mass, but you never saw Pope John Paul II in a Roman chasuble, save early in his Pontificate. I like how the deacon gives a Latin introduction before every Prayer of the Faithful, which are in the vernacular of course, and then how the dialogue after each is also in Latin. Speaking of deacons, I’m not sure if they were used in JPII’s Pontificate, but the Cardinal Deacons are present in most of Benedict’s Masses.

The only thing in that Mass that I can find that isn’t traditional to the Roman Rite is the use of Penitential Act B, but that’s just a little concession. I imagine the Papal Celebrations office designed that Mass, as that’s their job, and chose that themselves. Idk.

Anyways, that is a Baroqueified, pampered up Novus Ordo.

My apologies, I should clarify: A widespread “pampered up Novus Ordo”, as it were. In my opinion, that’s the way it should be celebrated: The OFM a sister to the TLM, not a watered down reflection.

 

[YoungTradCath]

My apologies, I should clarify: A widespread “pampered up Novus Ordo”, as it were. In my opinion, that’s the way it should be celebrated: The OFM a sister to the TLM, not a watered down reflection.

Frankly, that won’t change except with time. True, the Pope could go adding back all the old rubrics, which I think are badly needed, but unless the common attitude towards the liturgy changes, the product won’t change. What we have, I believe, is a whole nasty “do it yourself” attitude when it comes to the liturgy. I believe this is a holdover from the Vatican II hype. What really, really needs to happen is that it needs to be made known that ad libbing and intentionally changing texts and rubrics to suit your fancy is a mortal sin. Plain and simple. That’s how things were kept in line in the past. It was right in the Missal itself.

Now, I understand the whole thing about some priests being magnificent specimens of scrupulosity. I am not saying that we need to expound upon that like was wrongly done in the past. Knowing that you’re messing something up and not fixing it as best you can is different from accidentally making mistakes, which the priest is not culpable for doing. However, I believe A: rubrics need to be majorly tightened, B: it needs to be a mortal sin to intentionally do something wrong, C: the whole attitude needs to change towards the liturgy. I believe all these things are very, very moderate measures and are in no way severe.

 

[Anthony_V]

Frankly, that won’t change except with time. True, the Pope could go adding back all the old rubrics, which I think are badly needed, but unless the common attitude towards the liturgy changes, the product won’t change. What we have, I believe, is a whole nasty “do it yourself” attitude when it comes to the liturgy. I believe this is a holdover from the Vatican II hype. What really, really needs to happen is that it needs to be made known that ad libbing and intentionally changing texts and rubrics to suit your fancy is a mortal sin. Plain and simple. That’s how things were kept in line in the past. It was right in the Missal itself.

Now, I understand the whole thing about some priests being magnificent specimens of scrupulosity. I am not saying that we need to expound upon that like was wrongly done in the past. Knowing that you’re messing something up and not fixing it as best you can is different from accidentally making mistakes, which the priest is not culpable for doing. However, I believe A: rubrics need to be majorly tightened, B: it needs to be a mortal sin to intentionally do something wrong, C: the whole attitude needs to change towards the liturgy. I believe all these things are very, very moderate measures and are in no way severe.

As hinted above, I think that this new generation of very zealous and fervent seminarians will change the outlook on the mass. At a first glance, I am opposed to making a mortal sin any meddling with the rubrics. That sort of reverence and longing to example a good and wholesome priest or bishop for the sake of the congregation(s) needs to rest on the shoulders of the priest or bishop himself-- not on liturgical disciplines. If a priest won’t follow the rubric now, why would he follow it when there is a penalty of mortal sin? You can only guess that his mentality would be constant, “I’ll do what I please,” and the Church would be more prone to scandal and quarrel between priests and bishops. On the other hand, upholding priests and bishops to that sort of discipline is very much within the job description. I’m torn on the subject, really.