Should the Church return to the old rite?

[JulianN]

However, there also could have been far more going on that you are not aware of. There have been parishes with finance issues over the years, and perhaps there was a money issue that forced the priest to close these things? Because traditional priests are not against parish festivals and parish charities.

No, the parish used to be financially stable, and the festival was a successful fundraiser. I agree he was not a good pastor; he just chose to focus his rigidity on his traditionalism.

All I was pointing out was that returning to the EF is not some magic guarantee of people returning. .

 

[Peeps]

The majority of the priest who celebrate the EF in my diocese are in their 30’s.
They are well advertised, and offer the Sacraments in the EF as well.
There is not now, nor do,I expect it to happen, a huge surge in popularity. In fact, I do beelive it will always be a “niche” group, and that will keep it small.

This is exactly the situation in our city, which has had a Latin Mass (Institute of Christ the King) since the 1990s. Just doesn’t seem to attract a lot of young families. Many of the people who attend the Latin Mass are the people who were at the Re-Open Our Country Now! rally down in Springfield (Illinois State capital) yesterday; in fact, I received an invite to join them at that rally (I didn’t go). So they are hospitable!

I’m curious as to whether the right-leaning activism that is prevalent in our Latin Mass parish is the norm for Latin Mass parishes all over the U.S. Maybe I should start a thread? I don’t want to get a reprimand from the CAF managers, though, and such a thread could be considered infllammatory, I think.

But I am curious, and if this is common in Latin Mass communities in the U.S. it makes me wonder whether the Latin Mass parishes could be drawing people not just becaues of the Mass form, but because of the political climate in the parish. A lot of Catholic parishes (the OF parishes) have a large population of very politically “liberal” people (more government social programs, more women’s rights/women should be priests, etc.)–I’ve run across this often and it is frustrating for me personally. I actually feel very comfortable with the parishioners in our city’s Latin Mass parish–they are the ones who told me about Hillsdale College, where many of their children go! But I’m not comfortable at all with the Latin Mass, and our OF Masses are reverent and correct.

 

[Johann_du_Toit]

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI specifically stated that the two rites can coexist and complement each other. Although personally the best way for this to happen is for the Novus Ordo to mirror the Extraordinary Form (i.e celebration Ad Orientem with the priest not turning his back to Our Lord, Tabernacle in the centre, no Communion in the hand, no guitars of cymbals, etc)

 

[commenter]

it will always be a “niche” group, and that will keep it small.

The supporters of the EF are, unwittingly, helping to ensure it will remain a small niche group. Some of the Laity, in person or online:

• Revel in conspiracy theories about how the whole doc on Liturgy was written in a restaurant by one man (Msgr Bugnini), with help from his Lodge brothers.
• They “love to tell the story” about liturgical abuses common in the 1970s, but not now.
• They keep quoting from websites that oppose the bishops, more than they affirm the (genuine) value of the TLM.

This makes some potential joiners stay at arm’s length. So it stays a niche.

 

[CilladeRoma]

You hit the nail on the head!

Oh, an add the fact that any OF, other than the one celebrated at their parish, is “no good”.
Honestly, if they spent more time talking about why they like the EF instead of how bad the OF is, they might just grow in numbers.

 

[Jbrady]

I’m curious as to whether the right-leaning activism that is prevalent in our Latin Mass parish is the norm for Latin Mass parishes all over the U.S.

Pretty much. Very few progressives or moderates would feel at home, and even a lot of moderate conservatives might feel uncomfortable with the more extreme politics.

There still are a good number of politically naive people who are into the TLM for the warm, fuzzy nostalgia, but most are politically aware now, especially after the polarizing events of the last two years.

It’s a lot more pronounced in Europe, tough, where the movement is tightly associated with far right and alt-right nationalist movements.

 

[Peeps]

Pretty much. Very few progressives or moderates would feel at home, and even a lot of moderate conservatives might feel uncomfortable with the more extreme politics.

There still are a good number of politically naive people who are into the TLM for the warm, fuzzy nostalgia, but most are politically aware now, especially after the polarizing events of the last two years.

It’s a lot more pronounced in Europe, tough, where the movement is tightly associated with far right and alt-right nationalist movements.

Interesting. Thank you, especially for the information about Europe.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Honestly, if they spent more time talking about why they like the EF instead of how bad the OF is, they might just grow in numbers.

Here at CAF, OF and EF discussions always become a debate from both sides, and is mostly among an older generation, so it is easy to say all they do is complain about the OF when that is not actually correct or is based on a poor example. Most that attend the EF, most Catholics for that matter do not come here to this CAF website.

EF Masses are growing in numbers. I remember not to long ago when there weren’t any. And it will continue to grow and there will be more EF added to the OF.

If you want to see what the Church will be like down the road, look at the youth and todays youth want to put the reverence back in the Mass and they will pass that on to the following generations. They are not about talking about it but getting it done

 

[CilladeRoma]

This is not my experience. My diocese has had an EF since the 1990’s.
Attendance has never been higher than 300.
Then there is the “attitude” that they are more “authentic Catholics” because they don’t buy into the “novelties brought by VII”. What makes it especially hard to stomach is that many that attend are converts, who are under 40, who have no first-hand knowledge of the pre-VII Church.

 

[OraLabora]

celebration Ad Orientem with the priest not turning his back to Our Lord, Tabernacle in the centre

These two items warrant critical comment. For the first, the priest never turns his back on the Lord. At the consecration, the priest always faces the Lord regardless of his orientation. Facing East is facing a direction symbolic of the Lord’s return. At the consecration, the priest faces the Lord truly present on the altar, and never turns his back on him throughout the Mass.

For the second, prior to the council, having the tabernacle at the center of the high altar was the habitual configuration, but alternatives were in some cases permitted such as a side chapel where a strong devotion to Eucharistic adoration exists, and where highly recommended or even required in some cases, notably in churches with high tourist traffic, and in cathedrals with chapter of canons, conventual churches where religious would sing the Divine Office in choir, and in collegial churches.

So the placement of the Tabernacle in post-conciliar churches is nothing controversial, but are in fact practices allowed and codified well before Vatican II. One might argue that the exception has become the norm, but I see plenty of churches in my area with the tabernacle in the centre of the old high altar, even where a new table altar was consecrated to allow celebration facing the people.

Traditionalists hold fast to a lot of myths about what was or was not allowed before the council, myths easily dispelled with an old pre-Conciliar Ceremonial.

 

[OraLabora]

What makes it especially hard to stomach is that many that attend are converts, who are under 40, who have no first-hand knowledge of the pre-VII Church.

If they had first-hand knowledge of the Québec Church of the 1950’s, they would likely have run, not walked away from Catholicism.

I was born in 1958 so too young to have experienced the horror stories first-hand, but have heard the Jansenist horror stories directly from my parents’ generation. Vatican II coincided with the Quiet Revolution in Québec when Catholics started to desert the Church en masse. They didn’t stick around to see if things improved after V II. Their disgust was thorough and completely understandable. No amount of liturgical finangling would have brought them back. We call the pre-Conciliar period in the Québec « La grande noirceur » (The Great Darkness), that kept most Catholics poor and backwards. No going back for this lad.

 

[Jbrady]

Traditionalists hold fast to a lot of myths about what was or was not allowed before the council, myths easily dispelled with an old pre-Conciliar Ceremonial.

There is indeed a whole lot of romantic idealistic “golden age” thinking going on, with whitewash applied with reckless abandon. But nostalgia is like that.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

That is awfully strong language, @Emeraldlady. How in the world does it “lead unsuspecting faithful into sin” to discuss a Pope’s reasons for calling a council, or to assert the existence of a diplomatic agreement? In either case, it is historical facts that are asserted, not Church teachings on doctrine, dogma, or moral theology.

But since you want sources, here they are. Please note that the source regarding John XXIII’s calling of Vatican II has impeccable liberal credentials. The only thing I could say, is that someone might want to provide “sources” that assert John XXIII did not have this frame of mind in calling the Council.

John XXIII calls the council | National Catholic Reporter

The idea for a council had come to him, the pope said later in his opening speech to the council, “like a flash of heavenly light.” A few months earlier, while addressing a group of pilgrims from his former patriarchal see of Venice, he had referred to the idea as “an unexpected illumination.”

The comments in the below source are from CAF itself.

The article by Atila Sinke Guimarães, reproduced therein, is very well-documented. Believe it or not, as you see fit. What no one can deny, is that Vatican II did not expressly condemn Bolshevist or Maoist Communism.

Pact of Metz Traditional Catholicism

I recently found out about a pact between the Catholic and the Orthodox churces that took place in that German town before VII began. In it, the request by the USSR to not condemn Communism during the council was accepted as a condition for the participation of the Orthodox church as an observer. I’d like to know more about it, but researching in the Internet about I would only stumble at Sedevacantist sites. If the contents of such meeting are trully what the portrait, it’s indeed scandalous…

 

[puer.dei]

impeccable liberal credentials.

Credentials are credentials. Either something is verified, or it’s not. This sort of attempt to politicize everything is exactly the type of attitude that turns people off.

 

[OraLabora]

There is indeed a whole lot of romantic idealistic “golden age” thinking going on, with whitewash applied with reckless abandon. But nostalgia is like that.

What’s really odd is that a lot of this « nostalgia » comes from people too young to have been there or from converts.

It’s like going into a railway museum and seeing an old steam locomotive lovingly preserved and all shined up, and imagining old steam trains were always like that. In reality they were dirty, gritty and people hastened to bring their fresh laundry off the line when one approached.

Instead these new converts or young Catholics go to an FSSP or ICK High Mass or Missa Cantata and imagine Mass was always like that before the council. No mumbled or speed-read low Masses, always impeccably-performed Gregorian chant, etc.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

impeccable liberal credentials.

Credentials are credentials. Either something is verified, or it’s not. This sort of attempt to politicize everything is exactly the type of attitude that turns people off.

My only point was that “John XXIII called the Council on his own, spontaneously, after a personal inspiration of sorts” is not something that crawled out of some sedevacantist conspiracy-theory fever swamp somewhere. Quite the contrary.

I’d venture to say that pretty much anyone who takes the NCReporter as one of their preferred media sources, thinks that Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae are the greatest thing that ever happened in the Church, and that anything that characterized the Church before 1962 should just be a hazy memory that needs to be looked back as quaintness that we’ve progressed far beyond by now — the way we might regard butter churns, stagecoaches, and crinoline bloomers.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

What “folks” are you referring to?

 

[MagdalenaRita]

This is not my experience. My diocese has had an EF since the 1990’s.
Attendance has never been higher than 300.

This is kind of anecdotal. It could be something with your location that is keeping the numbers from growing. Also. for you to say 300, that is a lot of people to me. I live in a rural midwest area and just to have 300 at an OF Mass would be alot for us.

What makes it especially hard to stomach is that many that attend are converts, who are under 40, who have no first-hand knowledge of the pre-VII Church.

Two things here. Many converts and reverts, rather than those who have been Catholic all of their lives and never left, are discovering a great treasure. They want to know all about it. They are learning and studying the faith and they see that the Church has had a time line that started with Christ and it’s all good, even the pre-VII Church was good and beautiful. You do not have to have first hand knowledge of something to study it, read about it, know it and practice it. Many young priests coming in, not so attached to VII or the spirit of VII are also restoring a lot of tradition and beauty.

The other thing that I’m mentioning is because I am starting to see a trend here at CAF and it is becoming quite disturbing, I hope it is becoming disturbing also to the moderators and that is a distaste of converts. You did not in your comment but some have even come to the point of adding name calling when mentioning converts…

This is reminiscent to me of the parable in Matthew 1 of the workers in the vineyard where some were called at the start of the day, some were called later and then some again at the very end. The workers who had been there for the whole day complained and grumbled because all got equal pay but Jesus said to them He would pay as He wills.

In Haydock’s commentary it says:

I will also give. Some are called to the service of their God, and to a life of virtue, from their infancy, whilst others, by a powerful call from above, are converted late in life, that the former may have no occasion to glory in themselves, or to despise those who, even in the 11th hour, enter upon the path of rectitude; and that all might learn that there is time sufficient, however short, left them to repair by their diligence and fervour their past losses.

As I said perhaps these converts are realizing the treasure they have found and want to treat it with extra special care.

If they had first-hand knowledge of the Québec Church of the 1950’s, they would likely have run, not walked away from Catholicism.

This leads me to the last thing. The Catholic Church before Vatican II was just that, the Catholic Church,the Church of Christ. To put down the Church of either before or after VII is not charitable to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, nor to our Church Fathers, saints and families who came before us and handed down the faith to us.

God bless

 

[HomeschoolDad]

CilladeRoma:

What makes it especially hard to stomach is that many that attend are converts, who are under 40, who have no first-hand knowledge of the pre-VII Church.

Two things here. Many converts and reverts , rather than those who have been Catholic all of their lives and never left, are discovering a great treasure. They want to know all about it. They are learning and studying the faith and they see that the Church has had a time line that started with Christ and it’s all good, even the pre-VII Church was good and beautiful. You do not have to have first hand knowledge of something to study it, read about it, know it and practice it. Many young priests coming in, not so attached to VII or the spirit of VII are also restoring a lot of tradition and beauty.

That’s exactly what happened to me, shortly after I was received into the Church (late 1970s). I got hold of one of Father Stedman’s little Latin-English hand missals, and the rest was history.

The other thing that I’m mentioning is because I am starting to see a trend here at CAF and it is becoming quite disturbing, I hope it is becoming disturbing also to the moderators and that is a distaste of converts . You did not in your comment but some have even come to the point of adding name calling.

My experience has been that “cradles” are just fine with converts, as long as they keep their mouths shut and don’t challenge inconsistencies between faith and actual practice. I don’t know how to say this without coming across as insulting — I don’t mean it that way — but I stay in the Church because of her teachings, not because of her faithful. If not for that inconvenient little business about losing one’s soul if you leave the Church, and the necessity of being subject to the Roman Pontiff, one could always become Orthodox or seek out one of those “continuing Anglican” churches that insist they have valid orders and sacraments even from an RC standpoint (and they very well may, due to infusion of orders via the “Dutch Touch” and the “Polish Pat”).

CAF is actually pretty permissive and indulgent towards the traditionalist movement. That’s good — if it were otherwise, I wouldn’t be here.

I haven’t had enough coffee yet this morning to be able to endure our brother Michael

Maybe later today, but I have other more pressing things to do — assist at Holy Mass virtually online (TLM of course), prepare Sunday dinner for my family, and make up some missed homeschool work with my son.

Friend, I mean this in all sweetness, but that doesn’t tell me a thing.

I like your avatar.

 

[stpurl]

It is true, though. The people were expected to know the Latin of ‘their parts in the Mass’ to include their responses to the priest, the Gloria, the Credo, the Sanctus, the Pater Noster, the Agnus Dei, etc. Watch the Sunday Mass on EWTN. More often than not all of those will be Latin, and quite frequently chanted. There is plenty of ‘vernacular’ but that OF (especially when paired with the Roman Canon AKA Eucharistic Prayer 1) is what the actual documents envisioned and what was voted on. And for many of us, it’s what we had pretty much between 1966 and 1969. The translation was also then pretty close to the translation we have had since 2011.