Cradle Cath, you and I were both raised with the TLM of old, and unless folks are in denial or in a mode that cannot accept change, we have to be honest and admit that this liturgy was “individual and quasi-private.” It is my understanding that it still retains that aspect, which is why so many object to the rite of peace and other elements that require openness to one’s brother in worship.
The only people who actively participate in the OF at my parish is the choir on Sunday, and one or two ladies whose singing has an aweful
shreek character to it, which I think they are aware of. Our parish Church is gigantic, and there are perhaps one or two hundred persons in attendance on Sundays for the early morning or 11 o’clock Mass, as well as fifty or so persons the night before attending the Saturday night vigil.
The men especially seem suppressed in the OF. The folky feel-good character of many of the hymns are so overly effeminate that they appear to be almost embarassed. It is popular now for many parishioners to simply
shut their ears, as it were, and quietly read the hymns from the Hymnal and try to draw from it whatever spiritual “meat” they might. This is overwhelmingly and universally preferred to signing. The homily (which for many has become the focus of the Mass, as betrayed by their conversation) is too often as one person put it, “mild men telling mild people to be more mild.” The consequences of facing the people have taken their toll. Even very good priests, such as my parish has, seem to approach their homilies with the intention of pleasing the crowd, which usually pleases no one. The Mass has an “emotional-high” feel to it, largely brought about by the hymns and choice of liturgical music, which quickly evaporates afterward, leaving a sense of emptiness that desires another emotive uplifting, usually in the form of popular music or other enjoyments, so as to perpetuate the emotional-spiritual high.
THEREFORE, the insults directed at the EF as being private, individualistic, and not participated in by the faithful, etc., are hypocritical if being contrasted to the OF, as if it were somehow better. The OF at my parish has extraordinarily little “active participation,” especially on Sundays, which is glaringly shocking considering the large and faithful attendance. The frequent appearance of almost shame or embarassment on many parishioners was not a little scandalous for us converts. The variety of reposes and responses by the faithful, though I am sure they are reverent and legitimate, engendered nonetheless confusion for those newly attending, who necessarily must learn by both instruction and example. I have never been taught exactly what the appropriate responses to the liturgy are ; for example, what the correct or recommended gesture might be as a response to certain parts of the Mass, what frame of mind I ought be in at the different parts, whether I should at times be listening reverently or praying in the solitude of my mind, etc. Do I
pray with the priest or
listen to his prayers aloud ? Should my head be bowed only in explicit prayers or implicit prayers also ? The OF often leaves me feeling shipwrecked, having to decide for myself how best to worship my God in the context or frameword of the OF. It also has the effect of making the priest seem purely ceremonial, like an instrument or master of ceremonies, etc. Priests are often judged by the laity according to the expectations of these roles.
FURTHERMORE, it becomes obviously dangerous to anyone who can think if the object of the Mass is to engender an “active participation” by the lay faithful, as the easiest route to accomplish this is to emulate the sensational and emotional concert-like liturgies of the protestants, which also quickly “evaporate” and become like a drug, wherein the people require another doss of spiritual-emotional “high,” and this high is insinuated into the mind as being the Faith itself. LET ME REPEAT, an emotive spiritism substitutes the sense of Faith, which - the moment it is removed, evaporates or fails in expectation - is taken to mean a failure or loss of Faith, even an abandonment by God. This concern would have to be addressed to prevent the lay faithful from confusing emotive sensations as being consubstantial with the Faith. It also risks reducing the Mass into entertainment, like a television show, so as to draw more into attendance and keep them in attendance.
Your synopsis of the OF as contrasted to the EF, is, therefore, fallacious. The OF is increasingly becoming private and individualistic in spite of efforts to encourage “active participation,” in fact, and quite paradoxically, it appears attempts to engender “active participation,” as most understand that term to mean, has the exact opposite effect : the faithful react by becoming utterly inactive and often fail to participate at all. And this begs the question, is “active participation” now the obligation ? If I don’t sing a bad hymn, if I don’t with joy shake the hands of everyone around me and wave, etc., am I failing in my obligation ? If I can’t hear or understand what the pastor is saying, owing to his poor English, old age or poor vocal skills, am I losing my salvation ? Is it necessary that I hear and understand everything being said at the Mass ? Is that what constitutes my “active participation” ? Should I feel guilty if I accidentally err in a proper reponse ? If not, then does that imply my response is not necessary or required, and therefore absolve me from any need to actually make a response ?
This is the present OF.
Pax Christi,
Tim
I commend you though, for trying to discern the feelings of the bishops. I believe your poll indicates what many have felt all the while, that this is most likely within their jurisdiction, and no doubt the reason for the lack of TLM’s, for one reason or another known only to them.
