Some questions for those who are old enough to remember the traditional Latin mass:
- Were you able to understand any of what was going on at Catholic mass prior to the changes in the mass in the 1960’s?
Most of the Ordinary after some years of using the bilingual Missal. Some of the Latin hymns. Otherwise a word here or there.
- Which do you prefer: the mass that was mostly in Latin or the contemporary mass?
I much prefer the use of the vernacular, although I would like to see the Kyria, Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei in the old language from time to time.
- What are the major differences between the two types of masses?
The .NO. did away with a plethora of genuflections, signs of the cross, the bells at the consecration, which I would like to hear again, prayers at the foot of the altar as Mass started, the reading of the last gospel in Latin (always the same verses), prayers after low Mass for the conversion of Russia, etc., a different style of and number of vestments for the priest with cassock and surplice for the servers who were always male, only one set of prayers for the consecration, a more limited number of scripture readings which repeated each year instead of three different readings over a three year cycle.
The TLM was much more restrictively scripted than the N.O. which allows for some legitimate variations at the discretion of the priest. During my time in grade school and after we joined in singing certain parts including opening and closing hymns. We also, in the so-called dialogue Mass, responded to some of the prayers that had been reserved to the altar boys for response.
The major parts and sequence of events at both the TLM and NO , the Order or Ordinary, have been pretty much kept.
- Around what time did you notice the changes that were made in the mass?
Very soon after Vatican II was coming to a close. I have been told that our diocese in Northern Wisconsin was one of the first to start the changes. Over the last forty plus years we have experienced some minor abuses, which came and went, but nothing like some of the horror stories I have read about in the forums.The change in the altar used, the loss of the communion rails, and our Way of the Cross statues took place very abruptly.
Our new pastor at the time was known as a specialist in in liturgy. Most of the parish took the changes in stride, many welcomed them, a fair number were hurt deeply. Anger at both extremes was not uncommon.
- Are there any changes you would make to today’s vernacular mass?
The major item in my mind is reverence, reverence, reverence. I am not convinced we were all that reverent back then, but at least we prayed, whether it was the Rosary, the Missal, or whatever.
Our people need to be convinced of the miracle taking place during the consecration. I wish I knew how to do this. I would also like to see a return to some Latin, particularly in the ordinary, and the use of many of the old hymns which were inspiring, beautiful, and singable by us in the pews. That would include some Latin ones. I find many hymns from the Oregon publishing house abominable and literally un-singable by untrained voices. Some of the St. Louis Jesuit Glory and Praise stuff is actually in my opinion quite good, but some of them I could do without.
It has seemed to me that the NO Mass can be beautiful and uplifting when well done. The problem seems to me, to many times depend on the congregation, some congregations are there to worship God and other congregations are just there; maybe because they would really rather not be bothered. You know those who see going to Mass as a diversion from what they see as really important.
