The Modern Liturgical Battle Brewing Among Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If I have one overarching beef with the liturgical reform as a whole–irrespective the merits of each individual change–is that it introduced unnecessary division. We wouldn’t be having this “battle” or any other if things were left well enough alone.

Tradition, received by all from the forebears of all and applying to all, fosters unity. Novelty, which is introduced by some contrary to the tradition, necessarily causes division from those who came before and those who still adhere to the tradition and wish to maintain such unity.

Until very recently, the Church was very cautious in introducing even acceptable novelties for these reasons (among others).
 
Genesis315 said:
If I have one overarching beef with the liturgical reform as a whole–irrespective the merits of each individual change–is that it introduced unnecessary division. We wouldn’t be having this “battle” or any other if things were left well enough alone.

Tradition, received by all from the forebears of all and applying to all, fosters unity. Novelty, which is introduced by some contrary to the tradition, necessarily causes division from those who came before and those who still adhere to the tradition and wish to maintain such unity.

Until very recently, the Church was very cautious in introducing even acceptable novelties for these reasons (among others).
Click to expand...
Here is what I would have done, if it had been my decision to make:
  • Retain the prayers and rubrics of the traditional Mass in toto, with the following exceptions:
  • For those who wished it, all prayers aside from the Canon of the Mass (Roman Canon or Eucharistic Prayer I) in a dignified, literary form of the vernacular
  • No eucharistic prayers except for the Roman Canon, recited in a low voice in Latin, just as before
  • Do not add St Joseph’s name to the Roman Canon
  • Possibly an expanded lectionary, similar to the A/B/C cycles we have now
  • One reading from Scripture aside from the Gospel, no responsorial psalm, and then the Gospel itself
  • All Scripture readings in the vernacular
  • Permit and encourage response from the laity (what they called “dialogue Mass”)
  • Allow the Confiteor, Gloria, Credo, and Pater Noster to be said by both priest and congregation in the vernacular
  • No communal sign of peace (a distraction at what I see as the least opportune moment, one’s preparation for holy communion interrupted by the need to shake hands with everyone around you)
  • Kneeling for communion, only on the tongue, either receiving the Host alone, or the Host and the Precious Blood by way of intinction
  • Retain patens
  • Possibly omit the second Confiteor
  • Retain the Last Gospel (John 1:1-14) in the vernacular
  • Retain the Leonine Prayers, said for the intentions of the Holy Father (in that Russia can arguably be said to have converted)
  • And retain the traditional Latin (Tridentine) form of the Mass, unchanged, for those who prefer it (perhaps have one TLM at every parish that has two or more Masses on Sunday)
And that would be it.

This would have addressed the concerns of everyone who wished to have Mass in the vernacular, and would have, quite frankly, eliminated the possible objection that the Mass is something foreign to modern sensibilities. I don’t know to what extent, if any, people prior to 1965 were longing to have Mass in the vernacular — was there grumbling in the pews, people saying “this really needs to be in English so we can understand it”? — but if they were, this should have taken care of it.
 
Last edited:
Genesis315 said:
If I have one overarching beef with the liturgical reform as a whole–irrespective the merits of each individual change–is that it introduced unnecessary division. We wouldn’t be having this “battle” or any other if things were left well enough alone.

Tradition, received by all from the forebears of all and applying to all, fosters unity. Novelty, which is introduced by some contrary to the tradition, necessarily causes division from those who came before and those who still adhere to the tradition and wish to maintain such unity.

Until very recently, the Church was very cautious in introducing even acceptable novelties for these reasons (among others).
Click to expand...
Liturgical reform dates at least from the Apostolic Constitutions with different rites: Jerusalem, Carthage, Rome, Antioch, Edessa, Alexandria.
 
I read the article that the OP linked to. I see nothing new in it, nothing that hasn’t been said here at CAF a hundred times or more.
 
I attend a 1962 Latin mass that has the epistle and gospel read in the vernacular during the mass (I think this is allowed by Summorum Pontificum Art.6). While I personally prefer it in all Latin, the option exists. One of the other TLMasses I attend, the priest reads the epistle and gospel in English at the beginning of the homily after chanting it in Latin during the mass.
 
Honestly, when I saw the title and tried to imagine the top 5-10 things in the liturgy of possible contention, the priest’s orientation never entered my mind as the purported “battlefield”. This kind of hype and sensationalism contributes to divisions more than reality ever could.
 
Only a battle for those who want a conflict. Both are valid options, priests obey their Bishops, all is good.
 
Oh boy, here we go again… :roll_eyes:

Some say it is about obedience. Well. the Church is so much easier to obey if it is structured according to our preferences.
 
Last edited:
BartholomewB said:
read the article that the OP linked to. I see nothing new in it, nothing that hasn’t been said here at CAF a hundred times or more.
Click to expand...
This. And hasnt it been settled

Happy cake day @cor_ad_cor
 
Last edited:
phil19034 said:
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
Do not add St Joseph’s name to the Roman Canon
Click to expand...
Why? The 1962 Roman Canon has it.
Click to expand...
St. John XXIII added it. Not saying it shouldn’t be there, just pointing out it wasn’t there, and it was removed again later (and added again by Pope Francis).
 
Last edited:
It becomes a battle when people don’t want any changes to their Mass and how they think/say it should be. Been through it twice now - back when the New Mass was introduced and again at a parish that introduced the EF of the Mass. Boy! was there dissension, heated arguments and flat refusal to accept it being introduced there - for all the usual reasons which I’m sure we have all heard before.
 
🍿 🍺

What is the point if dragging this out again?

Roma locuta est, causa finita est.
 
The argument is old, but here’s something that I don’t hear mentioned a lot.

You know who thrives on division? Satan. He loves division.

There is always room for liturgical renewal in the Roman Rite of the Latin Church (since we’re talking about the one rite, aren’t we?) but people should pray and be charitable either way, not divisive.
 
MiserereMeiDei said:
I attend a 1962 Latin mass that has the epistle and gospel read in the vernacular during the mass (I think this is allowed by Summorum Pontificum Art.6). While I personally prefer it in all Latin, the option exists. One of the other TLMasses I attend, the priest reads the epistle and gospel in English at the beginning of the homily after chanting it in Latin during the mass.
Click to expand...
The usual procedure is as you cite, Latin, then in English, after the Gospel. The last TLM I went to was just the Latin with no English translation. Don’t know why not.
phil19034 said:
Do not add St Joseph’s name to the Roman Canon
Click to expand...
I am not suggesting that it was wrong to add it, but traditionally, the Canon was treated as inviolable. In a similar question on CAF a few months ago, I made the following comment:

When asked about the possibility of this, Pope Leo XIII said he couldn’t do it — “I’m only the Pope!”.
Click to expand...
 
While I personally think there are pros to both, I personally like the Ad Orientem because I don’t like the priest having his back to the tabernacle.

I read an article that stated one of the biggest arguments priests % bishops used to justify moving the tabernacle to a side altar or seperate room was the objection to the priest having his back to the tabernacle.

Because microphones are allowed in the Ordinary Form, I think it would be nice for the priest to return to Ad Orientem.

Perhaps, parish who celebrate more than one mass per day can experiment with having 1 mass celebrated Ad Orientem?

HOWEVER, I don’t see the need to change if the tabernacle isn’t directly behind the Altar. I don’t think “liturgical east” is really an issue… but I do think it sends the wrong subliminal message for everyone at the altar to have their backs to God, who is PHYSICALLY present in the tabernacle vs. spiritually present in the nave.

Personally, with belief in the Real Precessance being so low (esp among the 40 & under crowd), I think Ad Orientem is worth a try.

God bless
 
Of course the Canon came together organically — the Church didn’t just sit down, compose it, and say “here it is”, as happened when the Novus Ordo alternate eucharistic prayers were created. From the article you cite,

Certainly, when St. Gregory became pope, the Roman Canon was already fixed in its present order. There are scarcely any changes to note in its history since then. “No pope has added to or changed the Canon since St. Gregory” says Benedict XIV ( De SS. Missæ Sacr. , 162).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top