The new old Tridentine Mass

[Bbigam]

In my experience it is easy to enter and stay in a state of prayerful meditation in the EF. With the increased reverence, prayers, silence, and emphasis on the Cross, one can more easily contemplate Christ at Calvary. Of course it’s just my opinion, but I find the OF’s standing, sitting, verbalizing, hymns, laity participation to be a distraction. The OF has more of an emphasis on communal supper than Sacrifice at Calvary. Consider that in the OF immediately after the Agnes Dei (one of the most solemn prayer in our faith) we are to break away from our focus on Christ and shake hands with our neighbours. Even the architecture of post-V2 churches takes the focus off Christ and onto each other.

Interesting, as a person in the pews, it seems to me there there is more sit/stand/kneel in the EF. Maybe it varies from place to place?
I love both forms of the Mass when celebrated properly. I love the inherent deep reverence in the EF, with significant space for silence, all the genuflections, ad orientum, etc., and I love the chant. In the OF I love really singing along with (good settings of) the Gloria, Kyrie, Agnus Dei, reciting the Our Father and Creed, etc. - and most particularly I love actually being able to hear the Eucharistic Prayer (especially the Roman Canon).
I don’t love “peppy songs” in the Mass, especially during Communion, ignoring the Tabernacle, sign of peace that goes crazy, or a building that doesn’t look like a traditional Catholic parish. In the EF I really miss being able to hear the Canon. Thankfully my parish is a traditional building with high altar and we have next to nothing in the way of liturgical abuses. It’s very reverent.

We’d be a lot better off if “Spirit of the Liturgy” was incorporated fully into our parishes.

Agreed!

 

[otjm]

I was very inwardly busy instead of outwardly busy, as one is at the Novus Ordo.

iam not sure exactly what you are saying; having grown up with the Mass before Vatican 2 and having been required by my parents to use a missal, I find that I was every bit as “busy” reading the paryaers and turning the pages, as I am with the OF. Perhaps moreso; as I now do not need a translation.

But the Latin Mass was more meaningful because I was in meditation. At the new mass there are so many distractions.

again, having gone last Sunday to Mass at the local Trappist Abbey, I find their Mass (the OF) to be very meditative. And that in spite of the fact that there were families there with squirmy young children.

I have attended both forms of Mass, and I can find either one of them distracting or meditative; and that has more to do with me and the mindset I am in at the moment than anything to do with the Mass form. I am glad you find the Ef attractive, and I hope that it will be easily available to you. It may be that the parish you attend with the OF is not as solemn as you find the other; but that can vary from parish to parish, and seems to be improving as time passes.

 

[otjm]

All surveys point to the fact that actual participation in the Church is down significantly since the new Mass was invented. Therefore, it seems the physical ‘active participation’ inserted into the OF has not achieved what it intended.

Oh, you so love post hoc, ergo propter hoc arguments! Guess what - mainline Portestant church attendance is down by at least as much - so is that because we in the Catholic Church have the OF? Right! All the Protestants quit going - Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians - because we no longer celebrate the EF.

Not.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\All the Protestants quit going - Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians - because we no longer celebrate the EF. \

A lot of Protestants have quit going to their own churches, too, and they never used the OF.

 

[Ockham]

Oh, you so love post hoc, ergo propter hoc arguments! .

It would be nice if those who cite logical fallacies actually took time to understand them before accusing others of using them. What, just because you use such a term it must be true? It is common for this defence to be used by change agents desperately trying to convince people (including themselves) the negative results of their initiatives aren’t related.

As the Catholic Church is the true church we should be leaders, not followers. Perhaps Protestant attendance did drop as ours started to following the NO and other ‘spirit of V2’ changes. It is interesting how the first significant group to be seriously considering a return to the Church are the Traditional Anglicans. I wonder when the Progressive Uniteds will call the Church their home again?

If you find both forms meditative then you have better concentration skills then I do. What most people want is both forms to be offered equally and then the people can decide which fulfills their spiritual needs the best. At this point in the Church’s decline it would be a low risk gesture.

 

[otjm]

\All the Protestants quit going - Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians - because we no longer celebrate the EF. \

A lot of Protestants have quit going to their own churches, too, and they never used the OF.

Well, isn’t that truly amazing??? And they quit going about the time Catholics quit going, and in about the same proportions… Ummm, I am sure, absolutely sure, that it is because we changed the Mass… after all, it happened after that , didn’t it? Doesn’t that prove it?

No?

Oh, there might be other issues at play?

 

[otjm]

It would be nice if those who cite logical fallacies actually took time to understand them before accusing others of using them. What, just because you use such a term it must be true? It is common for this defence to be used by change agents desperately trying to convince people (including themselves) the negative results of their initiatives aren’t related.

And I am sick and tired of people blaming the change in the liturgy for the reasons that people have left the Church. There is never a survey showing the reasons why people leave; just that they left; and those who want to blame the change in the liturgy ignore the fact that there is clear evidence that it was not due to that but to other changes in society.

Look, I grew up on the Mass before Vatican 2; I went into the seminary because of my love of that Mass. It is not like I am some johnny come lately to the issue. I have also observed over the years the loss of people in the pews, and they are not going to the SSPX to get what they want, nor are they going to the Orthodox or one of the Eastern rites.

Further, I actually work with Catholics returning to the faith. I actaully have some hands-on experience of why they left. I have yet to find one who says it has or had anything whatsoever to do with the change in the liturgy.

That does not mean that a few people left because of that; there are always a few who will cut off their nose to spite their face. But we have had a reversal since the peak attendance in the 1950’s; it used to be that about 30% did not attend on a regualr basis; now it is about 70%. And the leaving in both groups - Prtotestant and Catholic - were gradual. There was nowhere that sudden dramatic drop - which should show in the attendance studies if it was due to the changes in the Mass.

I have not found a single biggest cause as to why people leave, but there are two glaring changes, one in society and one in the Catholic Church (and mirrored in the Protestants). The first is the use of the Pill and other forms of contraception - which lead to widespread sexual activity outside marriage, and the subsequent breakdown of that sacrament; the second is the change, particularly in the Catholic Church, but mirrored within the mainline Protestant churches, of the dumbing down of catechesis.

It is not for no reason that the evangelical and fundamental churches have seen such an upsurge in attendance - they actually preach Christ, and Him cruicified; they still preach the Ten Commandments instead of the ten suggestions. They still talk about Hell, sin, and the consequences thereof.

If Catholics were leaving the Church because of the change in the liturgy, then please explain why so many of them are now in evangelical and fundamental churches which have little or no clearly defined liturgy other than Scriptural readings and preaching? If they left because they wanted something more solemn, more traditional liturgically, that is the last place they would go.

If you find both forms meditative then you have better concentration skills then I do. What most people want is both forms to be offered equally and then the people can decide which fulfills their spiritual needs the best. At this point in the Church’s decline it would be a low risk gesture.

What some people want is for both forms to be offered; many people are not even vaguely familiar with the EF. It is going to take time, probably a long time, before there is enough availability that there can be a groundswell in favor of the EF. We have at least two generations who have never been to an EF. We have few enough priests who have even said one, and out of that group, there appears to be no serious extended interest in saying the EF.

And as to the meditative aspects, some of that I learned while in seminary; some since. And I will be the first to admit that it can be parish dependent; but slowly, slowly, we are seeing more and more a return to greater reverence in the OF. It is there, it is coming; but if one does not have much perspective time-wise, one is likely to not see the changes.

I am in no way against the increase in the EF. I am against statments that have no evidence backing them up. I am against theological snobbery, which some of the debate gets down to concerning the EF/OF. I am all for people finding whatever niche they need to worship God, to grow closer to Christ, and to seek their salvation. There is no question that those who call themselves Traditionalists are concerned about our good, and the good of the Church. What some sometimes fail to see is that those who prefer the OF can also seek the same, and find it.

 

[ProVobis]

Oh, you so love post hoc, ergo propter hoc arguments! Guess what - mainline Portestant church attendance is down by at least as much - so is that because we in the Catholic Church have the OF? Right! All the Protestants quit going - Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians - because we no longer celebrate the EF.

Not.

Church attendance started dropping in 1964. In some countries dropping in the late 50’s. So you’re right, it wasn’t only the OF.

 

[otjm]

Church attendance started dropping in 1964. In some countries dropping in the late 50’s. So you’re right, it wasn’t only the OF.

Actually, peak attendance was in 1957 - 1958, at 74%. It was dropping before Vatican 2 ever started; I suppose one could blame it on the election of John 23rd; but he wasn’t elected until near the end of 1958.

 

[Ockham]

And I am sick and tired of people blaming the change in the liturgy for the reasons that people have left the Church.

Further, I actually work with Catholics returning to the faith. I actaully have some hands-on experience of why they left. I have yet to find one who says it has or had anything whatsoever to do with the change in the liturgy.

There has never been such a drastic change to our liturgy then when the Novus Ordo was implemented in the seventies. Of course there are other factors to current church attendence, but clearly the NO isn’t helping much. Many people have never experienced the Tridentine Mass nor have access to it.

the dumbing down of catechesis.

It is not for no reason that the evangelical and fundamental churches have seen such an upsurge in attendance - they actually preach Christ, and Him cruicified; they still preach the Ten Commandments instead of the ten suggestions. They still talk about Hell, sin, and the consequences thereof.

If Catholics were leaving the Church because of the change in the liturgy, then please explain why so many of them are now in evangelical and fundamental churches which have little or no clearly defined liturgy other than Scriptural readings and preaching? If they left because they wanted something more solemn, more traditional liturgically, that is the last place they would go.

It’s just my opinion, but I credit the recent surge in Fundamentalism as an attraction to solid, uncompromising spirituality. The mainstream churches became very liberal since V2. The typical NO homily is all about God loving you, you should love him, love your brother, etc. Jesus taught that but He also taught discipline and consequence. I don’t need to hear God loves me, I need help getting to heaven. Globally, it is the more fundamental religions like seen in America or Islam that are growing. Wishy washy feel good, Oprah-esqe religions are dwindling.

Dumbing down is exactly what the mainstream churches have been doing lately. The NO itself is a watered down version of our liturgy. Many prayers were removed or shortened, fewer genuflections and sign of the Cross, the emphasis on Christ’s Sacrifice replaced with the communal meal, priest instead of tabernacle as the focal point in the sanctuary, etc.

And as to the meditative aspects, some of that I learned while in seminary; some since. And I will be the first to admit that it can be parish dependent; but slowly, slowly, we are seeing more and more a return to greater reverence in the OF. It is there, it is coming; but if one does not have much perspective time-wise, one is likely to not see the changes.

It is the aspect of being time perspective that is helping the Tridentine Mass make a come back. It served us for nearly two thousand years. The NO has only been around for a small fraction of our Church’s history. It is prone to abuse, customization, decreased cathethesis, obedience, and eventually attendance.

I am in no way against the increase in the EF. I am against statments that have no evidence backing them up. I am against theological snobbery, which some of the debate gets down to concerning the EF/OF.

It’s not about theological snobbery but this response is common from those promoting the NO. Perhaps deep down you acknowledge the increased reverence inherent in the Tridentine and rather than accept it you lash out at those pointing it out to you. Of course the NO/OF can be celebrated more reverently, but as we’ve seen, left to its own a break down in rubics is practically inevitable.

As the expression goes, as you worship so you believe. In summary, I see a direct correlation to the invention of the NO with the drop in attendance, obedience, and reverence in our Church. No, the rooster crowing does not cause the sun to rise, but the principle of cause and effect exists and I argue quite evident in this issue. The best way to prove this theory would be to offer both forms, restore the sanctuary with high altars and Communion rails, make missals accessible and let’s see what happens.

 

[Bbigam]

Dumbing down is exactly what the mainstream churches have been doing lately. The NO itself is a watered down version of our liturgy. Many prayers were removed or shortened, fewer genuflections and sign of the Cross, the emphasis on Christ’s Sacrifice replaced with the communal meal, priest instead of tabernacle as the focal point in the sanctuary, etc.

It’s true, many prayers were shortened and such; in particular, I’m not sure why they dropped the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and so many of the Signs of the Cross and genuflections. But there were enrichments too, such as the significant expansion of the lectionary and the restoration of the Prayers of the Faithful. And I know you say this a lot but I don’t understand what you mean about emphasis on Sacrifice being replaced with communal meal. (Although I’m not a big fan of the second EP that doesn’t mention sacrifice. We hear EP I most Sundays at my parish.)

It is the aspect of being time perspective that is helping the Tridentine Mass make a come back. It served us for nearly two thousand years. The NO has only been around for a small fraction of our Church’s history. It is prone to abuse, customization, decreased cathethesis, obedience, and eventually attendance.

The EF has not been around in its current form for anywhere near 2,000 years. Yes, it developed organically, but was not codified until Trent. The current forms of some of the Eastern liturgies, such as Byzantine Divine Liturgies, are much older.

It’s not about theological snobbery but this response is common from those promoting the NO. Perhaps deep down you acknowledge the increased reverence inherent in the Tridentine and rather than accept it you lash out at those pointing it out to you. Of course the NO/OF can be celebrated more reverently, but as we’ve seen, left to its own a break down in rubics is practically inevitable.

Inevitable is way too strong a word to use here.

As the expression goes, as you worship so you believe. In summary, I see a direct correlation to the invention of the NO with the drop in attendance, obedience, and reverence in our Church. No, the rooster crowing does not cause the sun to rise, but the principle of cause and effect exists and I argue quite evident in this issue. The best way to prove this theory would be to offer both forms, restore the sanctuary with high altars and Communion rails, make missals accessible and let’s see what happens.

First, the Ordinary Form (which is the correct name, not “Novus Ordo”) wasn’t invented, it was adapted from what is now known as the Extraordinary Form. True, it was changed a lot in some ways, but still has a continuity and restored some lost elements like the Prayers of the Faithful.

Second, I totally agree with you on the high altars and communion rails. Thankfully we’re seeing progress in this direction. For example, our cathedral - the Cathedral of Christ the King in Lexington, KY - was built in the mid-60s and never had a high altar, tabernacle is in a little side room (although it is a fairly nice cathedral, not too modern otherwise, and it does have a communion rail). They’re raising money now to build a beautiful high altar for the tabernacle and move the choir to a loft! I’m pretty pumped about that.

Not sure what you mean about the missals, most parishes around here have them in the pews.

 

[Ockham]

I don’t understand what you mean about emphasis on Sacrifice being replaced with communal meal. (Although I’m not a big fan of the second EP that doesn’t mention sacrifice. We hear EP I most Sundays at my parish.)

How many parishes advertise the “Holy Sacrifice of the Mass” as opposed to “Mass” or “Eucharistic Celebration”? The sacrifice vs meal subject is deep and worth looking into. Here are some articles that shed light on it:

latin-mass-society.org/dietrich.htm

hospitallers.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2008-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2009-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=3

fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html

latin-mass-society.org/leomass.htm

The EF has not been around in its current form for anywhere near 2,000 years. Yes, it developed organically, but was not codified until Trent. The current forms of some of the Eastern liturgies, such as Byzantine Divine Liturgies, are much older.

It was codified by the Council of Trent (thus the name Tridentine) but as you’ve pointed out, was around for many years prior. It’s interesting to note that the Mass was codified by Trent and yet overturned by V2, a pastoral council.

Inevitable is way too strong a word to use here.

I wish it was, but how many OFs are actually said exactly according to the rubics? Are EMHCs deployed only when absolutely necessary or regularly scheduled? With a de-emphasis on reverence and tradition it is easy for break downs in practice.

First, the Ordinary Form (which is the correct name, not “Novus Ordo”) wasn’t invented, it was adapted from what is now known as the Extraordinary Form. True, it was changed a lot in some ways, but still has a continuity and restored some lost elements like the Prayers of the Faithful.

There’s nothing wrong nor inherently derogatory about the term Novus Ordo. Translated, it is “New Order” which is exactly what it is. There has never been so many drastic changes in the liturgy. As you pointed out the EF grew organically which the current OF can’t claim.

Not sure what you mean about the missals, most parishes around here have them in the pews.

Latin-English missals. There are low cost translation booklets that parishes could easily invest in. Certainly they are cheaper than Glory & Praise hymn books.

 

[Bbigam]

Thanks for your reply, Ockham. We don’t agree on all the details but we certainly agree that the Mass - the Holy Sacrifice - really needs to be celebrated a lot more reverently than it often is nowadays.

I’m realizing that I am very blessed to be in a very faithful and reverent parish. It is the OF but is known as being the “traditional parish” of the area (aside from the FSSP community, which I do visit on occasion).

 

[Ockham]

Thanks for your reply, Ockham. We don’t agree on all the details but we certainly agree that the Mass - the Holy Sacrifice - really needs to be celebrated a lot more reverently than it often is nowadays.

I’m realizing that I am very blessed to be in a very faithful and reverent parish. It is the OF but is known as being the “traditional parish” of the area (aside from the FSSP community, which I do visit on occasion).

Amen.

Although born and raised Catholic lately I feel like I’m converting to the faith too. The Catholicism I was taught was during the peak of the Age of Aquarius, feel good, no judgement sentiment. As a result, I wasn’t a very good Catholic. It took me awhile to understand and appreciate the new old Tridentine Mass yet it was worth the effort. The internet is a wonderful tool in seeking out the history and teachings of the Church. There’s a Latin expression that goes: Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi (as you worship so you believe). Attending the Latin Mass has grown my knowledge and stengthened my faith which will hopefully help me get into Heaven. May God Bless you along your journey.

Here’s one more link on the Mass as a Sacrifice topic: ewtn.com/library/SPIRIT/CALMASS.TXT

 

[otjm]

It was codified by the Council of Trent (thus the name Tridentine) but as you’ve pointed out, was around for many years prior. It’s interesting to note that the Mass was codified by Trent and yet overturned by V2, a pastoral council.

Let’s be accurate. Vatican 2 did not overturn the Mass of the Council of Trent. It suggested desired changes, and we can all agree that the Mass that Paul 6 provided went beyond what was envisioned by the Council. Blaming Vatican 2 flies in the face of the documents themselves.

I wish it was, but how many OFs are actually said exactly according to the rubics? Are EMHCs deployed only when absolutely necessary or regularly scheduled? With a de-emphasis on reverence and tradition it is easy for break downs in practice.

Having traveled in a number of midwest and western states, it has been my observation that the rubrics are followed far more often than they are not followed. That, of course, does not include some of the dioceses which have been notorious for not following closely. It is easy to presume, from personal experience, that one’s personal experience is indicative of the whole, when in fact it is only a small bit of reality. If one is in a “looser” diocese and one only sees what occurs there, it is all too easy to presume that all other dioceses are the same; and in particular when one reads emails from (several) other dioceses. Bad news gets around a whole lot faster, and is far more noticeable, than good news. People who are satisfied with something are not going to complain; when one only hears complaints, one easily presumes that all is akilter.

There’s nothing wrong nor inherently derogatory about the term Novus Ordo. Translated, it is “New Order” which is exactly what it is. There has never been so many drastic changes in the liturgy. As you pointed out the EF grew organically which the current OF can’t claim.

However, there is also no question that it has been used as a derogatory name by those who span the field from not liking it to those who seem to believe it is not a valid Mass. Inherently, you are correct, there is nothing drogatory. It is not a matter of inherent characteristics, but of useage; and the useage has been by those who prefer the EF and have been derogatory towards the OF.

Whether or not there have been drastic changes in the liturgy (and we can agree there have been), and whether or not some of those things will be “unchanged” (and it is my opinion that gradually over a long period of time there will be changes to the OF), the bottom line is that Benedict 16 has given us a means of referring to both the current and the prior Mass forms in a way that a) acknowledges the current reality (Ordinary Form) and the fact that the older form is not widely said (and according to his letter, the Pope does not expect that to change in the foreseeable future), and b) removes language which has been used combatively.

The Pope has moved to put the clamp on egregious rubrics issues. In addition, the priests and bishops who have been less than accurate in following the rubrics are retiring, and/or dying. What started 40 or 45 years ago has in large part run its course. Men entering the seminary have “different fish to fry”; and that started with the “John Paul 2” priests, men ordained in part because of the inspiration of that Pope; a Pope who was not for liturgical experimentation. Anything as large as the Church, once in motion, takes time to change that motion. That may be of little comfort to someone who has to put up with a priest who may not have been well trained in any number of areas. But the Church is much more than the local parish, or for that matter, a particular diocese.

As another way of looking at this: people who are generally either satisfied with the OF, or of no particular opinion, do not refer to it as the Novus Ordo; they simply refer to it as the Mass; the point being that the term is used most often in discussions referencing the EF, and there too often as a cudgel. Using the terms EF and OF keep the emotive aspects down to a lower roar.

 

[Ockham]

As another way of looking at this: people who are generally either satisfied with the OF, or of no particular opinion, do not refer to it as the Novus Ordo; they simply refer to it as the Mass; the point being that the term is used most often in discussions referencing the EF, and there too often as a cudgel. Using the terms EF and OF keep the emotive aspects down to a lower roar.

All very good points and I’ll take extra care not to use the term in an unnecessarily negative manner. However, I prefere to continue making the distinction because the NO wasn’t always the OF and therefore doesn’t need to be in the future. I see a clear link between the change in our liturgy and the diminished state our Church is in today. If people who favour the NO/OF react to that negatively and want to suppress free speech then I think the problem is with them, not those who use a specific term to describe a specific event.

 

[otjm]

All very good points and I’ll take extra care not to use the term in an unnecessarily negative manner. However, I prefere to continue making the distinction because the NO wasn’t always the OF and therefore doesn’t need to be in the future. I see a clear link between the change in our liturgy and the diminished state our Church is in today. If people who favour the NO/OF react to that negatively and want to suppress free speech then I think the problem is with them, not those who use a specific term to describe a specific event.

Well, the NO wasn’t always the OF and the Tridentine rite wasn’t always the EF. However, following the lead of the Pope is not a bad thing, and it removes the emotive element in discussions. And that is not a bad thing. You may well not intend to create an emotive element in a discussion, but that does not mean that your listeners will not perceive one; and if the intent is to carry on an intellectual discussion rather than an emotional free-for-all, then perhaps adopting what the Pope has used makes more sense.

You make good points in your discussions; and the area of liturgical expression is certainly subject to personal likes and dislikes, and to prudential judgements. I would not suggest otherwise, but I would encourage you to adopt the Pope’s lead. I don’t really think he is intending any supression of free speech, and it avoids what has become a hot button on both sides. If we are to engage others in discussions about liturgical matters, it would seem more helpful to both sides to begin anew avoiding overly emotional language that serves little more purpose than to declare subliminally “I am better than you”.

I disagree that people who favor the OF are trying to “surpress free speech”. Whether an attack is being made or not, if the perception is that an attack is being made, the reaction is going to be defensive. And the history of the discourse which has involved attacks is not going to go away on its own; it has been combative and some, not all who favor the EF have been combative and worse. There has been all too much “painting with a broad brush” by both sides. Using language that has been combative in the past, even if you don’t mean it to be combative, all too often simply causes further combat. I don’t really think you intend to be dismissive of others. Nor do I perceive you as being particularly combative. I would urge you to reconsider; this is not something that has come from those who favor the OF; it has come from the Pope.

 

[Ockham]

I’ll take your suggestion to follow the Pope’s lead under consideration as it is well reasoned. I wish all Catholics would follow the Pope’s lead. Consider that he only distributes Holy Communion on the tongue of those kneeling.