R
reggieM
Guest
That sort of thing is very common around here. The sign of peace has people walking all throughout the nave, conversing about things very much in the spirit of a social hour and that spirit persists.
- Status
S
Samuel_Mary
Guest
This is basically how I see it. We are at the beginning of a long battle to recapture the liturgy from banality and irreverence. But for some, it’s easier to just go and live territory that’s already been won. That’s why they go to the Vetus Ordo.
Luckily, in my area the Novus Ordo parishes are generally good and reverent, with Priests who chant and wear the cassock etc, and hymns that - while the occasional one might be a bit borderline - are certainly not terrible (I’m actually a big fan of ‘Be Still for the Presence of the Lord’ sung in a solemn setting).
But for some people who seek tradition and reverence, in their locale it’s a straight-up choice between folk music, inappropriately happy-clappy hymns, bear hugs and cocktail party type circulation during the sign of the peace, hand-holding during the Pater Noster (!) etc vs. the Vetus Ordo, so it’s not surprising which one they’ll choose, particularly because the former would seem so comprehensively in need of traditional renewal that it might seem like a daunting and hopeless task to stick it out there and make polite suggestions.
Eventually, the worst of the legacy of the 70’s will fade into relative obscurity, the tastes of the JPII Babies will prevail over the tastes of those who were formed by that era. At that point, perhaps interest in the Vetus Ordo will taper off.
O
OraLabora
Guest
That tends to be a local thing. There are several former parish churches in our pastoral unit. At one, you can hear a pin drop before Mass, the other is social hour. I think it boils down to previous comments about reverence, which has nothing to do with the form of the Mass but rather folks seeking reverence finding kindred spirits at the EF. If my choice were reverent EF vs irreverent OF I’d also go to the EF. Fortunately I have the option of a very reverent OF in a monastery. If there were an equally reverent EF, I’d still go to the monastic OF.
G
gracepoole
Guest
I’ve never witnessed a non-reverent EF. I’m not saying they don’t exist – I’ve just never seen one.
O
OraLabora
Guest
The variety of styles is a red herring. It isn’t the choice of EPs or penitential rites that makes one Mass more reverent than the other, but how they are executed. Our abbey uses all 4 EPs and all 3 penitential rites during the week, with one penitential rite reserved for Sundays, with appropriate Kyrie. All are chanted with equal beauty, with a simpler tone for the EP during the week regardes of which is used, and yes the Roman Canon is used fairly often as well.
The EF also had different styles from low Mass all the way up,to a pontifical High Mass, and often popular vernacular hymns were sung as well, before the opening rites.
So again it seems to come down to reverence, something informed not by a rite but rather an attitude. It would seem that many seeking reverence congregate at the EF… or here, at our abbey that uses the OF, which celebrates reverently regardless of which options allowed by the rubrics are used. It would take a curmudgeon indeed to find fault with our OF.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Im sure that’s true now, but many have said that was not always the case before the Council when there was only one form. And I have no reason to believe that if the EF returned as the only form rather than an option entrusted mostly to enthusiasts, that the EF would somehow be inoculated against abuses.
R
reggieM
Guest
In the past I might have objected to this idea that the reason why people go to the EF is because it’s “easier”, but I’m mellow now.
Ok, let’s concede that. It’s “easier” to attend the TLM and find the reverence, tradition and sense of the sacred.It’s “more difficult” in the OF. I can agree.
One of the big reasons it’s more difficult to find this in the OF is because a “reverent style” with the traditions which are inherent in the EF (cassocks, postures, chant) are offered on a subjective, preferential basis. Priests who desire this style of liturgy, will do this very nicely in the OF. However, as stated, the very same liturgy can officially be done in the “sloppy” style or the “social hour” style. Bishops have permitted this, and the “styles” range very widely from folky-style, to even rock-band contemporary Evangelical mega-church styles. The liturgy can be stripped of every small t tradition, and that’s perfectly legitimate and permitted.
I’ll take it farther. Most of us “don’t like” the so-called “sloppy”, relaxed, laid-back, anything-goes style. That’s fine. However! There are some who like it. No - not only that. We might think that “sloppyness” (and I’ve seen incredible examples of this from priests and people on the altar) are just “mistakes” - but it’s not that. The “relaxed”, easy-going liturgy is (not for all but for many) an absolutely deliberate, planned and desired outcome. The message is: “This is a down-home liturgy. We’re all family here. Come as you are. We’re just a welcoming, laid-back, easy-going community. Hi y’all. How y’all doin’ today? Let’s just kick back and be with the Lord.”
Now, it sounds like I’m a hater of such things, or I’m putting people down - but I am not! If the bishops permit this kind of thing in the OF - and they do - who am I to say it’s “bad” or “wrong”? I don’t like it, personally, but some people do. Maybe they grow closer to God that way. They’re probably all more holy than I am – so how can I criticize their liturgy? Again, the OF permits a wide range of styles - “permits” meaning bishops who have authority over the liturgy allow this.
So, my heart goes out to those who want to take the “more difficult” path of reforming the OF from the bottom up, because that path is fraught with risks and threats of losing everything. As I said - we may find the perfect parish and priest in one place, but he is replaced by a laid-back guy and everything changes. I have seen that with my own experience in the OF.
But again - so it does not appear as if I am criticizing others who love the OF liturgy, or denigrating the liturgy itself - which I would never do - I would say, that if whatever style of liturgy offers God holiness of worship, and helps His people grow in sanctification - then this is a very good thing and I thank God for it.
You’re blessed to have that in your environment. Not all of us do - on the contrary, a reverent, traditional-style OF is a rarity in this part of the world (for what I know and have seen in visits to many parishes).
I admire and support your optimism about the OF. I don’t see lack of support for the TLM as a good thing though. There’s no reason why both cannot continue to flourish. The TLM meets more needs than merely being a substitute for a reverent modern liturgy. There is a connection to the past and a continuity that is found in the EF that many people find as a unique contribution to the life of the Church.
Agreeing with the Deacon above. If there is respect among all Catholics (Eastern, Western, OF, EF) in their worship - then this is not a competition with winners and losers. If God is given more and more perfect worship – then He is glorified and He will be more pleased with His people.
R
reggieM
Guest
I have never seen one either and I’ve attended dozens here in the U.S. and in other parts of the world. There has been a beautiful consistency of reverence throughout.
S
Samuel_Mary
Guest
The first part of your post is too big to quote but I’ll say that I do recognise what you’re saying, that these ‘irreverent’ and ‘non-traditional’ tendencies have established themselves as enduring tastes and aren’t only done by lack of care, but deliberately in parishes which want them. I see that, but I definitely see an age correlation. I remain hopeful that informality will wane as the Millennial (or rather, JPII babies) come increasingly to dominate parishes and be old enough to constitute the majority of clergy and begin to be established as Bishops, etc.
I’m sure some ‘pseudo-Baptist’ parishes will endure though, so long as the rubrics permit it.
The TLM has nourished many saints. I hope it remains practiced and it is certainly unthinkable for me that it should ever be made illicit again. I have actually been earlier today, and yesterday evening after work, to a Tridentine Low Mass. I just don’t see restorationism (return to total primacy of the Vetus Ordo) as viable or our best option at this stage but I’m happy for the two rites to remain in perpetuity. I just BELIEVE that if the Novus Ordo is renewed in the image of tradition under the custodianship of the new generation, that Vetus Ordo attendance might level out or taper off. But if that renewal was to happen and yet the attendances at Vetus Ordo still continued to grow, I wouldn’t lament that. The main thing is that we get our renewal.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Yes, but have you in addition to the above (with tambourine) had the privilege of attending a Mass on Sunday where the Creed (in any form) is never given and the Eucharistic Prayers are ad-libbed and sole part of the consecration left unchanged is “This is my Body”? IOW, it’s as though somebody sat down and said, “let’s see exactly how illicit we can make a Mass without technically making it invalid --let’s have no penitential rite, no Gloria 3/4 of the time, even when it is supposed to be said, ad libbed collects, songs instead of the Responsorial Psalms, every “he” in the readings changed to either God, Jesus, they, ‘he and she’ etc, ‘dialogue gospels’ throughout the year, glass chalices, excuse me he calls them ‘cups’ still, ad libbed canons, ad libbed Lords Prayer, ad libbed post communion prayer, ad libbed Blessings, etc, constant criticisms of correct behavior as brainwashed and rigic because it is not being 'spontaneous” and ‘free’, discussions of certain church teachings as being ‘outmoded’ and ‘rigid’, frequent remarks that St Paul is being sexist, speaking of Jesus as being a product of His times, that the Caananite woman was in the right and JESUS was wrong, etc. etc.
I am not criticizing the priest because I don’t presume to know what is in his heart. But what I am doing is reporting actual incidents.
If I am reading my missal which has the Sunday collect and I can read what that said, and I listen to the priest and he says some of the words but leaves out some others, and adds still others, then I can rationally and nonjudgmentally state that the collect is ‘ad libbed’. That’s a fact, not a judgment. There are a host of reasons that the priest could be ad libbing, and since I don’t know the reason for sure, all I can do is state that it IS ad libbed.
And stating that is NOT judging. And being concerned about it is my right and responsibility as a Catholic lay person.
I guess that’s the most frustrating part when it comes to just trying to share a concern about liturgy here. . .the assumption that a report of something that is objectively NOT what is part of the liturgy being said or done is assumed to be a criticism of the priest for saying or doing it.
But it isn’t!
If we are kept from reporting facts because they’re assumed to be judgments, then the main result is that we are kept from reporting facts. So we’re in the situation where we are ‘allowed’ to state things that are considered not judgmental, like, “My experience at Mass is positive”. But we are not allowed to state, “My experience at Mass is that I’m concerned because instead of having the Creed or baptismal promises recited by the priest and people, we don’t.”
So what now? We’re just expected to sit back because noticing discrepancies is ‘criticizing the priest’? We’re supposed to have our children experience this for years and years and either say nothing or have to tell them that what Father says and does is not what the Church and other priests say or do in many ways, but hey, we can’t criticize so even though we don’t get to have full and active participation in the Mass, too bad?
No WONDER we have so many people who come of age and say that they never heard X in the Mass, or saw X, or heard about this or that Catholic teaching.
Because while my experience is probably pretty ‘extreme’, it is on a continuum. If you have a parish, a diocese, and its families exposed for 10, 20, or 30 years to Masses where there are two, five, ten ‘innovations’ which skew the whole liturgical focus in one direction and away from another, you’re going to wind up with thousands and thousands of Catholics who at some point find another diocese, or find the TLM, or find EWTN, or the Internet and experience the liturgy as it should be, and are gobsmacked to learn that for all those years they were deliberately steered to think of Mass in one way and away from another understanding.
It is not that Mass is NOT communal. (It is). But it is also Sacrificial.
It is not that Mass is NOT joyful (it is). But it is also solemn. Solemnity does not presuppose a negation of joy, nor joy a negation of solemnity.
S
Samuel_Mary
Guest
Do people say this? I’ve always heard ‘write respectfully to the Bishop, informing him of the problem’ as the solution to the sorts of things you mention.
I
InOmnemTerram
Guest
Kids are kids.
They love things today they can’t stand tomorrow.
They love things today they can’t stand tomorrow.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
So are you saying that the kids are attending the EF as a ‘fad’ which they’ll reject quickly?
Nearly 50 years ago when the OF came in, a lot of US were kids and, if you read the posts, the vast majority of those kids ‘loved it then and love it now’. . .
So that kind of blows your theory away.
You must have different kids from most of us. They don’t ‘love things today they can’t stand tomorrow’. If anything, the stuff they love is the stuff that they love 5, 10, 15, 20 plus years later.
O
otjm
Guest
“Morning Has Broken” is a popular and well-known Christian hymn first published in 1931. It has words by English author Eleanor Farjeon and is set to a traditional Scottish Gaelic tune known as “Bunessan” The song shares the tune with another 19th century Christmas carol, Child in the Manger.
It was 40 years later that Cat Stevens sang it; and we could argue all day as to whether or not his including it in an album made it secular music. It is not one of my favorites at all, but it is also one I rarely hear anymore - including in church.
As to talking before Mass - yes, we had the problem until about 5 or 6 years ago and this in spite of being a parish with Perpetual Adoration for the last 25 +/- years. the solution was simple. The choir sings something about 5 minutes prior to Mass. It solved the chit chat.
R
reggieM
Guest
That’s a good point. The OF was something quite novel at the time, but love of the OF did not diminish as the novelty wore off.
The same is true for the EF. It’s not justified to claim that people attend the EF for less-than-holy or less-than-reasonable motives. For most of us who love the TLM, it’s not a fad or a rebellion against everybody else. I try never to use my appreciation for the EF as a wedge against the other rites of the Church.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
I agree. As I’ve noted though, and again, not as a criticism, it does appear so often that trying to share one’s appreciation of liturgy is viewed as a dismissal or contempt of ‘the other form’ when it is not.
You know, I can express my like of something particular for just about anything else, and at most I’ll get a “hey, I don’t like that but whatever works for you” (for example, I can say that I prefer Upstairs Downstairs to Downton Abbey, or Jane Austen to George Elliot, or Dr Pepper to Coke, or even St. Therese of Lisieux to St. Theresa of Avilla, or St. Thomas Aquinas to Father Thomas Merton, etc.) No problems there, no savaging of my preference, no sneers that my preference is outdated, outmoded, rigid, stupid, holier-than-thou, was abrogated, should be removed from the face of the earth, etc.
I just don’t understand it.
I’m not trying to put down people who love the OF. I do think the EF is superior in many ways, but . . .and I don’t think this is understood. . I do not think thereby that the OF is inferior. That may seem paradoxical but it really isn’t.
It’s like, The OF is great. It is valid, the norm is perfectly beautiful, it meets the needs of many people, wonderful.
The EF likewise is great. I prefer it, just as many prefer the OF, because it meets my needs (as the OF meets the needs of many, the EF likewise meets the needs of many), they are both valid, both beautiful.
There. No need to 'tear down the other". No need to get either offensive or defensive, no, “my rite is better than yours and that means yours is not so good”, but a simple, We have two rites, we can choose which one we like and think is better, and we can still appreciate the other and think it is not inferior in any way, but we just prefer one as the Spirit has moved us.
Why else would the Spirit have permitted two different but equally valid rites, if ONE was ‘inferior’ to the other? But why wouldn’t He permit them if both were superior, but some were called to one and some to another?
Isn’t it like marriage and the single state? Both are different but equally valid. Some are called to one, some to another.
G
gracepoole
Guest
Wow, Tualatin must be a Catholic oasis.
O
otjm
Guest
Not exactly. Oregon, if it is not the most unchurched state, is in the top 2 or 3.Wow, Tualatin must be a Catholic oasis.
In the Archdiocese, not counting missions, Eastern Rite churches and college/university chapels, has 135 parishes. Out of those, 49 hve some form of adoration; 7 of them once a month; 13 perpetual, and the rest at least once a week.
There are 6 parishes with the EF and one with Dominican old rite. The Dominican parish is weekly; of the others, 3 are weekly, 2 once a month and 1 once every other month.
D
DarkLight
Guest
The one thing I would say is that the OF is incomprehensible enough when you’re not used to Mass at all. The EF would be plain old impossible.
S
Samuel_Mary
Guest
Possibly, but not a major disadvantage either way. If outsiders are coming to Mass because they want to become Catholic, they’ll get themselves familiarised with Catholic worship in the fullness of time (and, ideally, with the support of their pastor/fellow laity). They aren’t going to quit just because everything isn’t instantly as clear as A-B-C. Otherwise I’d venture to say it was a conversion impulse built on sand anyway.
- Status