Review of the "Old Rite"

[TomH1]

As Fr Z says on his blog the one thing not to do is panic or react in any way to this questionnaire. He believes that will simply play into the hands of those who are opposed to the use of the Extraordinary Form (EF). The CDF have just added some, all optional, changes to the EF mass; the longest time any liturgy has gone without changes. It would rather perverse for the Holy See to do this thing which supports the EF to then circulate a questionnaire with the ulterior motive of trying to kill off the EF.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Most of the evangelization of the entire world was done with the TLM, including Africa under Archbishop Lefebvre. I don’t think we can say the NO is better or more preferable for places like Africa; it’s that the current generation has only known the NO.

Point well made.

I was just trying to bring out that the Faith enjoys great growth and vigor in large parts of the lesser-developed, non-European “Global South”, and that this is happening without widespread availability of the TLM. I have to think, for instance, that a Filipino could well say “we are doing just fine with the New Mass, we have vocations in abundance, our people live their faith and are in love with their faith… maybe the problem is not with which Mass is celebrated for the faithful, but with a lack of faith and holiness among affluent Westerners, maybe, eh?”

Not trying to put words in anyone’s mouth, indeed, I would welcome (name removed by moderator)ut from faithful non-Westerner Catholics along these lines.

 

[stpurl]

With respect, Father, there are more situations like one which I have personal knowledge of: A priest who has in a parish for more than 10 years never offered the Mass according to the GIRM. He omits the Penitential Rite (specifically stated because the people are already holy Easter people), does not say the Gloria at all (not simply omitting in Lent and Advent), does not say a Creed of ANY type or baptismal promises or anything, ad libs the Eucharistic prayers including the words. Of consecration, has all kinds of innovations, politicizes the homily to the left. . .and consistently boasts of how he ‘told off the bishop’, tells us we’ll see women priests ‘because it’s justice’, claims Jesus was ‘wrong’ at several points, etc. People on FB and elsewhere boast of how “FATHER” first name has made Mass no longer ‘boring’, doesn’t make them feel uncomfortable, ‘is a breath of fresh air’, etc. etc.

But he says the OF. This has gone on for YEARS and nobody cares that these people haven’t had, for the most part, the Mass offered in UNION with even the parish a few miles away, let alone the whole world. They have had an INVENTION made up by a man they look at as “just like Jesus, because he breaks all the rules to show us a better way’.

In my opinion, there are a lot more places in the US where priests saying the OF do so through a ‘cult of personality’ (this is NOT the first parish where I have been told that “Father does things differently because OUR parish is guided by the SPIRIT, not silly rules’) and this has been the case for decades, but now suddenly everybody is worried about the EF? And about cults of personality?

At nearly 64, I’ve been through a bit, and it just strikes me that, for quite a few in the Church today, esp the older hierarchy, there seems to be a lot of PROJECTION. IOW, there are a lot of accusations of behaviors of ‘trads’ and ‘problems with EF” etc that are not problems for the TRADS and the EF but are, and have been for decades, problems with certain more ‘radical’ Spirit of Vatican II and OF apologists, instead.

 

[Paul_Edwards]

Based on that, maybe there should be a Review or Survey on the New Rite (1969 missal) to Bishops, for example:

Question 1: how many vocations percentage wise have come out of these churches which use this missal?

Question 2: how many people in your experience as bishops believe in the real presence at these masses?

Question 3: is it used to promote a personality cult or are the rubrics followed?

I don’t see a reason for a review of the old rite, but after 50 years of trial maybe it’s time for a review or survey of the “usage of the new rite”.

 

[InThePew]

In my opinion, there are a lot more places in the US where priests saying the OF do so through a ‘cult of personality’ (this is NOT the first parish where I have been told that “Father does things differently because OUR parish is guided by the SPIRIT, not silly rules’) and this has been the case for decades, but now suddenly everybody is worried about the EF? And about cults of personality?

Certainly it’s true that personality cults are by no means confined to any particular group. With many of the situations like the one your describe, it’s not so much that bishops aren’t concerned about it (granted some may not be) but more a case of why buy trouble? Bishops probably tend to leave priests like that alone simply because trying to stop them is more trouble than it’s worth. Priests like that are, in a sense, confined within their own community who like what they do. Removing the priest (from the parish or from active ministry) would require someone else to go in and confront a very messy and altogether unpleasant situation, while the bishop would still be left with an unhappy and uncooperative priest on the payroll!

When it comes to EF groups, IMHO some bishops are wary because they sense the risk of division - both amongst the clergy and the lay faithful. That’s not intended as a criticism of EF devotees but is a reflection of some of the deep seated feelings that exist on both sides.

 

[stpurl]

Thank you, Father. Yes, that was the take I’ve received on it.

You’ll forgive me for saying, I hope, that the whole issue comes across far more as a big business corporation following the standardized rules laid out with appropriate buzzwords etc. in order to get the best possible ‘return’ for the ‘product’ (I.e., keep the revenue flowing) than it does with actual concern for the people in the congregation who wind up either deluded and beguiled, or who spend years in burgeoning disillusion regarding their priest and diocese’s actual intents of ‘pastoral care’ and feeling disregarded, or who, whether from the start or having been ground down completely, choose to vacate either that parish/priest, or to leave the faith entirely.

I say this having had the great fortune to have removed to a parish with a wonderful and orthodox young priest. It does however make me even sadder about those ‘left behind’, including some of my family who have been driven away completely as they could not counter the constant abuses and twisting of teaching and had young children to consider. Had they attended regularly, they would have constantly had to correct the priest, and as the children inevitably grew to teen age, and its ingrained rebellion, the years of having had experience of ‘that priest was always saying wrong things but everybody supported him, now I’m supposed to believe that somehow ‘you adults’ in my family, who I’m already finding so inadequate, were ‘right?” How can I trust anybody?”
And this was a situation I totally understood as it had occurred with other family members who had suffered in youth, and then as teens and young adults completely broke with the faith as they simply could not trust ‘the whole thing’ with so many examples of priests especially, but also of other people like religious ed teachers, who kept constantly denying aspects of the faith.

That’s why I find it so hard to accept this kind of attitude about the EF. If anything, there is a lot more adherence to dogma and doctrine among EF adherents, even the ‘hard stuff’. Much less of the ambiguity and the relativism and indifferentism that have crept into much of the Catholic (and by extension, since the vast majority of Catholics attend the OF, the OF world).

It is a sad situation and saddest of all is that the Catholic world, instead of being united in fighting against the forces of evil, is spending more of its time sniping at its own people.

 

[dochawk]

Most of the evangelization of the entire world was done with the TLM

???

Really?

As I understand history, most of the evangelization was centuries, even the better part of a millennium, before Trent, long before either the liturgy of Rome or even the use of Latin were universal in the western church.

That, and during a periodic which , pre mohamadan conquest, in which the Eastern Churches were larger than the Western Church.

I’m not knocking the EF, but the notion that it was the norm outside Italy centuries before Trent doesn’t have a historical basis.

 

[InThePew]

You’ll forgive me for saying, I hope, that the whole issue comes across far more as a big business corporation following the standardized rules laid out with appropriate buzzwords etc. in order to get the best possible ‘return’ for the ‘product’ (I.e., keep the revenue flowing) than it does with actual concern for the people in the congregation who wind up either deluded and beguiled, or who spend years in burgeoning disillusion regarding their priest and diocese’s actual intents of ‘pastoral care’ and feeling disregarded, or who, whether from the start or having been ground down completely, choose to vacate either that parish/priest, or to leave the faith entirely.

Well certainly there’s nothing like a drop in revenue (people tend to vote with their wallets) / footfall combined with an increase in complaints to spur a diocese into action. Unfortunately, the response tends to be something along the lines of trying to pry the troublesome priest out of his current position (in other words, getting him to go quietly/voluntarily) combined with generalised angst about where to put him next. Some priests, sadly tend to be “repeat offenders”, moved from appointment to appointment all the while leaving a string of disgruntled parishioners and divided parishes in their wake!

That’s why I find it so hard to accept this kind of attitude about the EF. If anything, there is a lot more adherence to dogma and doctrine among EF adherents, even the ‘hard stuff’. Much less of the ambiguity and the relativism and indifferentism that have crept into much of the Catholic (and by extension, since the vast majority of Catholics attend the OF, the OF world).

I’d agree with that - a priest’s approach to the liturgy says a lot about. A loose and freewheeling attitude toward the rubrics is more than likely to be reflected in their attitude towards dogma. At the same time, not all situations call for the same response and a little pastoral prudence goes a long way. Still, the more flexible nature of the OF can lead to any “anything goes” attitude on the part of some priests; while the more rigid nature of the EF can lead to an attitude in the part of some priests that’s best summed up in the response to one diocese’s exit survey: “when you ask a question you get a rule in response, you don’t get a ‘let’s sit down and talk about it’”.

 

[po18guy]

Was going to post, but what’s the point?

 

[poche]

The problem with this is who would be in charge of this huge republic?

 

[Diaconia]

We have a similar system here in the Archdiocese mentioned by others: One parish, run by FSSP priests. All sacraments in Latin.

The Archbishop does not want our already over-taxed priests taking on additional Masses.

The priests obey, none are offering EF Masses on their own accord; and concentrating those who want that liturgy together, keeps the single parish full enough that it remains viable.

The system is working well here.

I don’t attend, as I am very busy with a large Western parish and a small Ukrainian parish. Two [very different] liturgies is all this particular deacon can handle.

If I had more time I would devote it to Spanish, as that need is, by far, both fast-growing and ubiquitous across the state.

Deacon Christopher

 

[OraLabora]

In my opinion, there are a lot more places in the US where priests saying the OF do so through a ‘cult of personality’

The building of a cult of personality around the priest is nothing new nor an artefact of the OF Mass. Such priests existed well before Vatican II. In Quebec prior to Vatican II and the Quiet Revolution (which was occasionally noisy) which both occurred simultaneously, clericalism was so deep that the priest was often lord of his parish to which all owed fealty. Home visits were met with trembling and fear, and by God married women of childbearing age had better be pregnant or nursing.

True that liturgically the priest might have been far more constrained, but the cult of personality was alive and well in those days.

Fortunately those days are past and no Quebec priest today would dare tell off a woman if she was not pregnant or nursing. The Church has had to go through a great kenosis to purify itself. It has hurt in the short term but will be for the better. I’ll take a priest being a bit of a showman in the liturgy any day over the kind of clerical and Jansenist priests that lorded it over us before the Council.

I’m 62 and these stories have been recounted to me straight from the mouths of my parents’ generation. Many were they who in the 1960’s told the Church to take a hike. I can’t say I blame them.

The Church is undergoing another kenosis over the sexual scandals. But that is for another thread. Hopefully this purification too is for the better in the long run.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The problem with this is who would be in charge of this huge republic?

Ideally, a Catholic monarch. (Fun fact for today, I once lived in the same apartment building as King Kigeli V of Rwanda, living in exile in the United States. I didn’t know him. He was a traditionalist Catholic.)

If not that, then there are several options — federal-style representative democracy (such as we have in the US), a Westminster parliamentary system, or a unitary republic. There are others.

 

[eobrien]

The traditional Mass did not come out of Trent. Trent codified a Mass that had already been used for at least 1,000 years, since at least the time of St Gregory the Great, with some slight developments over time. Trent also allowed for other Rites (like the Dominican, Carmelite, etc) that had been in use for 200 years to continue. These are variations of the Roman Rite, not totally different Masses.

The Eastern Churches have not evangelized the world the way the Latin Church has. That’s why the Latin Rite is used in way more places around the world.

Africa, Asia, and the Americas were all evangelized with the Latin Mass. I don’t know where you’re getting your information that it wasn’t used outside of Italy until after Trent, but that’s simply not true.

 

[stpurl]

Thank you, Father. It’s attitudes and explanations like yours which are going a great deal farther in healing rifts and restoring hope to many Catholics.

Thank you for being able to acknowledge hurts with understanding, without sugarcoating, and being even-handed. I can’t tell you how often when I’ve tried to express things that have caused me pain like this that I’ve been raked over the coals for ‘my attitude’ or told yet again that it’s people like me (I.e. traditionalist-liking) who have been far, far more of a problem and it’s because we reject Vatican II and Pope Francis and want permanent 1950s. Thank you for NOT doing that.

I hope you wouldn’t mind if I copy your response (handwrite) and send it to some of my family who have been so hurt. I think that if anything could help heal, it would be knowing that a priest has ‘heard’ them and has truly responded neither with condemnation of them on the one hand, nor an attempt to make them feel that ‘all the wrong is with the other side’, but rather that when things have gone wrong, and for whatever reason can’t be ‘redressed’, that the suffering of the people is NOT viewed as something ‘unfortunate but they don’t matter as much as X”, but rather, that many priests suffer just as much over the hurts to others as those who suffer do. It really helps to know that.

Thank you again.

 

[dochawk]

The traditional Mass did not come out of Trent. Trent codified a Mass that had already been used for at least 1,000 years, since at least the time of St Gregory the Great, with some slight developments over time.

While neither of us is able to comment join how much the rite in the diocese of Rome changed over the preceding millennia, the simple fact is that it wasn’t universal in the west.

I don’t know where you’re getting your information that it wasn’t used outside of Italy until after Trent, but that’s simply not true.

And I don’t know where you got those words to put into my mouth.

Many dioceses used the liturgy of Rome, either directly or with local adaptations, but it wasn’t universal. No-one is really sure today what portion used it, or even what portion used latin–neither of which was required before lent.

The Eastern Churches have not evangelized the world the way the Latin Church has.

That simply isn’t true; the east did it far earlier. Ultimately, most of the Christian East, which extended into what is now China, was overrun by mohamadens and forcefully converted.

Prior to that, the Eastern Church was larger than the Western Church.

 

[Diaconia]

All the countries of Eastern Europe, Byzantium, and Asia Minor owe Christianity to missionaries from the East.

Remember, of all the original patriarchates, only Rome was Western.

Many years later, there would be more missionary activity from the Western Church, particularly to Africa and the New World.

Islam was a terrible blight on Christianity generally, and on the East in particular.

Cyril and Methodius, teachers to the Slavs, pray for us!
Deacon Christopher

 

[InThePew]

Thank you, Father. It’s attitudes and explanations like yours which are going a great deal farther in healing rifts and restoring hope to many Catholics.

You’re welcome. I’m not a fan of the EF but, having sat through (and seen) more than a few NO masses which I’d charitably describe as a funny form of penance, I can certainly see the attraction. The real difficulty comes from entrenched attitudes on both sides rather than a willingness to journey together - each form influencing and gaining from the other.

I hope you wouldn’t mind if I copy your response (handwrite) and send it to some of my family who have been so hurt. I think that if anything could help heal, it would be knowing that a priest has ‘heard’ them and has truly responded neither with condemnation of them on the one hand, nor an attempt to make them feel that ‘all the wrong is with the other side’, but rather that when things have gone wrong, and for whatever reason can’t be ‘redressed’, that the suffering of the people is NOT viewed as something ‘unfortunate but they don’t matter as much as X”, but rather, that many priests suffer just as much over the hurts to others as those who suffer do.

Go for it - my only rule for people quoting me is that they make me sound intelligent! In all seriousness though, I can understand the hurt that can be caused by wayward priests - of all liturgical shades. As a wise old priest said to me once “never divide the people ; that’s the first commandment” and for my part I try and do my best to keep that commandment.

 

[eobrien]

“the notion that it was the norm outside Italy centuries before Trent doesn’t have a historical basis.”

I’m not putting words in your mouth, though I meant to type “used MUCH outside Italy”. I also said the East didn’t evangelize the world THE WAY the West did. As in the West evangelized entire continents—Europe, Asia, Africa, the Americas. It’s not a knock on the East, just pointing out the Western Church evangelized literally the world with the Latin Mass.

Latin was in use throughout the West for centuries before Trent. Trent codified it as a requirement for the liturgy and anathematized the insistence that it must be in the vernacular.

Have you read The Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Msgr Klaus Gamber? He covers a good amount of history of the Roman rite in the book. Dr. Taylor Marshall has done quite a bit of work on the history of the Roman rite as well. I have not taken his course on it, but I have heard him summarize it and it coincides with my own research and Msgr Gamber’s.

 

[dochawk]

though I meant to type “used MUCH outside Italy”.

I didn’t suggest that, either.

It wasn’t the norm–that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t common.

Of the SWAGs I’ve seen, Romanish in latin at 50% might be the best, but no-one really has a solid basis.

I also said the East didn’t evangelize the world THE WAY the West did.

Fr. @InThePew put it better than I could have, but you have to take an extremely narrow view and definition to make such a statement. You have to disqualify all evangelization in the vernacular or with non-roman liturgy as not being “the way” that the west did it. I suppose excluding the East that was evangelized by the rest of the east would help, too . . .

Evangelization was largely from the East, though much of that te3rrit

Latin was in use throughout the West for centuries before Trent.

If you are suggesting that as near universal liturgical use, then no. If you mean that its use was widespread, than yes, that’s well known.

Have you read The Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Msgr Klaus Gamber?

No, and I lack the interest in western liturgy to put that ahead of the multitude of books already in my queue.