The Old Mass

[Deacon_Ed]

Catholic Eagle:

Oh no, not the people of today!!! What about the people of yesterday!!! What about the people of the future!!! This is one of the reasons the Traditional Latin Mass is needed. It accomadates to no specific group of people, past,present, and future. The Latin is old and not the vernacular, the rubrics are as unmovable as a mountain, the Sacrifice is apparent, the reverence is immutable.
Now don’t tell me “When I was a child, Monsignor O’ Conner Brien Kennedy, did a Low Mass in 15 minutes on a Sunday!!!”. The truth is the truth. This was a very American abuse and in other places the problem was that the Mass is to long and that the prayers were too long.You can complain and complain but the root is dislike of the TLM. To some its the 1/4 hour Mass but to others its the 14 hour Mass. This is just another complaint against the Immemorial Mass of the Roman Rite[notice I said Roman Rite]. “Everyonr is a wise guy” as I was once told by a wise person.

The Church is ministering to the people of today, not the people of yesterday or the people of tomorrow. And, no, the 15 minute Mass was not an American problem: it happened in Ireland, in Germany and in Italy. In Ireland there is still complaining if the Mass goes over 45 minutes.

And, of course, the bishops themselves had been calling for liturgical reform for some 150 years before the Second Vatican Council. Why? Because they could see that there were problems, the Mass was not speaking to the people who were off doing their own private devotions which were more meaningful to them.

Nope, it was time for change.

Deacon Ed

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Catholic Eagle:

Actually Byzantine CHristians also traditionally separate Men from Women in the Church and traditionally women wear veils. Its not just aTridentine thing

Um, I serve a Byzantine parish (Holy Cross Melkite Greek Catholic Church) and we don’t separate the men from the women, nor does any Melkite parish I’ve ever been in. The same is true of the Ruthenians and the Russians. The parish you cite is a very conservative Ukranian parish that does, indeed, follow the ancient practice. But this is very rare in today’s world, and nothing in the CCEC (Code of Canons of the ERastern Churches) or in the Liturgical Directives call for this – it is simply following an ancient tradition. Don’t say all Byzantines do it because they don’t.

Fr. Deacon Ed (My Eastern Signature)

 

[Catholic_Eagle]

Deacon Ed:

Um, I serve a Byzantine parish (Holy Cross Melkite Greek Catholic Church) and we don’t separate the men from the women, nor does any Melkite parish I’ve ever been in. The same is true of the Ruthenians and the Russians. The parish you cite is a very conservative Ukranian parish that does, indeed, follow the ancient practice. But this is very rare in today’s world, and nothing in the CCEC (Code of Canons of the ERastern Churches) or in the Liturgical Directives call for this – it is simply following an ancient tradition. Don’t say all Byzantines do it because they don’t.

Fr. Deacon Ed (My Eastern Signature)

Sorry Father
I didn’t say all . It is an ancient tradition, isn’t it? I have also heard that Orthodox do the same thing in Greece but I’m not sure. Please don’t let this escalate into a fight!!

 

[jennstall]

Brendan:

In all likelihood, he probably did have a basic understanding of the language due to the Roman occupation. He also would have known Kione Greek very well from his time in Caparnum (there was an active Greek theater there), and the fact it was in general common use (like how you can find English spoken in most of Europe)

Besides, didn’t you see the Passion of the Christ, Jesus spoke Latin to Pilate

Heh. I haven’t seen Passion of the Christ yet. I’ve been waiting for the DVD because I prefer to do my crying in private

 

[jennstall]

Catholic Eagle:

Iohannes: thank you for coming back and posting this!!!
Some things to add to his list:

• Celebration of Mass in masoleums, catacombs, and sewers

Actually I think I’d really enjoy the celebration of Mass in masoleums and catacombs. That would be beyond cool, but I’ll give a pass on the sewers… and everything else you mentioned.

 

[Crusader]

Catholic Eagle:

Crusader, you need to learn about the early church. Hippolytus was the first antipope and died about 236. There were heretics back then. It jsut not recorded. St.Justin’s apology can be mistranslated and words can be substituted to imply a more protestant meaning. Did you read it in Latin?

Telling heretics not to receive Holy Eucharist today is laudable. Your showing your true colors. The Church has excommunicated persons who harm the Faithful for centuries and it doesn’t really matter what some New Age[read modernist] people say.

Actually Byzantine CHristians also traditionally separate Men from Women in the Church and traditionally women wear veils. Its not just aTridentine thing. Go to St.Elias UGCC parish, Brampton,Canada .Its funny how some hate the Ecumenical Council of Trent. I wish there was a Trent II. God give us a council the type of Trent to attack the errors of our day.

BTW, 1950 was far from the days of the early history of the Church. Why do you detest the TLM? Tell me why,crusader?

I don’t detest the “TLM.” Not in the least. I attend “TLMs” and the eastern Divine Liturgy on a regular basis.

What I do find laughable are the self-described “traditional” Catholics who attempt to sell the misguided notion that the “TLM” is somehow superior to the Novus Ordo Mass.

Yes, all the ills of the Church and society at large will vanish if we simply scrap the Novus Ordo Mass, and go back to following the Missae of 1962. Talk about poppycock.

It seems clear to me that many of these self-described “traditional” Catholics do great damage because they push what they believe is good, versus what the Church actually directs. They whine about “liberals” within the Church, yet they do nothing but feed the “liberals” an unending supply of ammo by their often times hyper-critical or just plain odd actions. Actions that actually contravene the Church in many cases.

Impediments to a liturgically abuse-free Church are on both flanks – the far left AND the far right. That much I am certain of…

 

[deogratias]

It seems clear to me that many of these self-described “traditional” Catholics do great damage because they push what they believe is good, versus what the Church actually directs. They whine about “liberals” within the Church, yet they do nothing but feed the “liberals” an unending supply of ammo by their often times hyper-critical or just plain odd actions. Actions that actually contravene the Church in many cases

Good post.

Exactly my position. I am a “traditionalist” who attends the TLM Mass out of preference but I do not deny the validity of the NOM or Vatican II. the traditionlists you describe do more harm than good. I see the recepient of your post has been banned but there are “others” who may benefit from its message anyway.

 

[Crusader]

deogratias:

Good post.

Exactly my position. I am a “traditionalist” who attends the TLM Mass out of preference but I do not deny the validity of the NOM or Vatican II. the traditionlists you describe do more harm than good. I see the recepient of your post has been banned but there are “others” who may benefit from its message anyway.

Indeed. Many “traditionalists” don’t seem to understand that we all need to follow the Church and not our own desires. It’s not OK to push a position contrary to the Church’s just because it’s more “traditional” – at least in their minds…

 

[VincentO]

Sorry to join this post late - I’ve only just read it and wanted to make my thoughts known.

I think the letter is great - in the couple of months I’ve been using this site the message I’ve got is that the ‘new’ mass is full of abuses and that the door has only been opened to abuse since the new mass. The message I’ve also got is that TLM is ‘better’ or ‘more holy’ than the new mass.

I’m sure this isn’t the case - perhaps more freedom with the liturgy has opened the door wider for abuse, but I’m also sure (can anyone back me up?) that abuses were common before. However, it’s amazing what looking back over 40 years can do to make things appear better than they were.

I’m sure things weren’t perfect or they would never have had to change. At the same time, I can understand exactly why people feel the way they do about the change.

The thing I agree with most in this letter is that the pendulum swings to both extremes when a change is made. No one gets things exactly right first time - the people interpreting the changes are only human after all, and where we feel the changes have been wrongly interpreted, well - we all have a voice and in this day and age we shouldn’t be afraid to use it.

That’s all I’ve got to say really…nothing new i guess, but I wanted to say it all the same.
Vince

 

[Crusader]

VincentO:

Sorry to join this post late - I’ve only just read it and wanted to make my thoughts known.

I think the letter is great - in the couple of months I’ve been using this site the message I’ve got is that the ‘new’ mass is full of abuses and that the door has only been opened to abuse since the new mass. The message I’ve also got is that TLM is ‘better’ or ‘more holy’ than the new mass.

I’m sure this isn’t the case - perhaps more freedom with the liturgy has opened the door wider for abuse, but I’m also sure (can anyone back me up?) that abuses were common before. However, it’s amazing what looking back over 40 years can do to make things appear better than they were.

I’m sure things weren’t perfect or they would never have had to change. At the same time, I can understand exactly why people feel the way they do about the change.

The thing I agree with most in this letter is that the pendulum swings to both extremes when a change is made. No one gets things exactly right first time - the people interpreting the changes are only human after all, and where we feel the changes have been wrongly interpreted, well - we all have a voice and in this day and age we shouldn’t be afraid to use it.

That’s all I’ve got to say really…nothing new i guess, but I wanted to say it all the same.
Vince

Indeed…

On average I think it would be fair to say that the typical Catholic who makes the effort to attend a Tridentine Mass is likely less tolerant of liturgical abuse. After all those who attend the Tridentine Mass are but a tiny subset of those that attend the Novus Ordo Mass, and the eastern Divine Liturgies.

However, to suggest that liturgical abuse began with the introduction of the Novus Ordo Mass, or that the Tridentine Mass is some sorta silver bullet that will eradicate liturgical abuse throughout the Church is simply a display of profound ignorance.

Ignorance that does harm to the Church…

 

[CD4]

Beautiful…Thanks for sharing this with us…

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Crusader:

However, to suggest that liturgical abuse began with the introduction of the Novus Ordo Mass, or that the Tridentine Mass is some sorta silver bullet that will eradicate liturgical abuse throughout the Church is simply a display of profound ignorance.

Ignorance that does harm to the Church…

For my part, I have never heard any advocate for the Tridentine Mass suggest that liturgical abuse began with the introduction of the Novus Ordo. We may suggest that the abuses, because of the rubrics, were less widespread with the Tridentine and of a different kind. In other words, rushing the Tridentine Mass is a different form of abuse than, say, making up one’s own Eucharistic prayer or changing the wording of the Mass.

Further, no advocate of the Tridentine I know of is or would be happy with abuses in the Tridentine Mass, and most would realize there can be improvements, such as the congregation singing the parts in Latin which are proper to them, just as Vatican II said.

Hence a complete return to the Tridentine Mass would not eradicate liturgical abuse and I have never heard an advocate for the Tridentine Mass suggest that it would. As I said, the abuses would be of a different kind, but they would not stop altogether.

And my own personal advocacy of the Tridentine Mass is not based on abuses, but rather a comparison of the merits of each without the abuses. Thus I refer people to writers such as Dietrich von Hildebrand, Cardinal Ottaviani (latin-mass-society.org/study.htm), Fr. Aidan Nichols, Fr. Brian Harrison and others.

For instance, in the 2001 conference on the liturgy at Fontgambault headed by Cardinal Ratzinger, the speakers really did not discuss abuses at all. It was much more of a question of the relative merits of the two liturgies regardless of the abuses.

God bless.

 

[Crusader]

Brennan Doherty:

For my part, I have never heard any advocate for the Tridentine Mass suggest that liturgical abuse began with the introduction of the Novus Ordo. We may suggest that the abuses, because of the rubrics, were less widespread with the Tridentine and of a different kind. In other words, rushing the Tridentine Mass is a different form of abuse than, say, making up one’s own Eucharistic prayer or changing the wording of the Mass.

Further, no advocate of the Tridentine I know of is or would be happy with abuses in the Tridentine Mass, and most would realize there can be improvements, such as the congregation singing the parts in Latin which are proper to them, just as Vatican II said.

Hence a complete return to the Tridentine Mass would not eradicate liturgical abuse and I have never heard an advocate for the Tridentine Mass suggest that it would. As I said, the abuses would be of a different kind, but they would not stop altogether.

And my own personal advocacy of the Tridentine Mass is not based on abuses, but rather a comparison of the merits of each without the abuses. Thus I refer people to writers such as Dietrich von Hildebrand, Cardinal Ottaviani (latin-mass-society.org/study.htm), Fr. Aidan Nichols, Fr. Brian Harrison and others.

For instance, in the 2001 conference on the liturgy at Fontgambault headed by Cardinal Ratzinger, the speakers really did not discuss abuses at all. It was much more of a question of the relative merits of the two liturgies regardless of the abuses.

God bless.

I have read a great many posts here, and in other forums that suggest that liturgical abuses did not take place before the Novus Ordo Mass was introduced. Father Andre J. Meluskey’s letter in the Adoremus bulletin silences that incorrect notion.

I have seen many posts that suggest a return (even a forced return) to the Tridentine Mass would eradicate all liturgical abuses.

Finally, it’s not up to you or I to judge the “merits” of each Mass. That’s horribly arrogant to even bring up…

 

[deogratias]

Prior to Vatican II, all Masses in all countries had the benefit of being uniform. All seminarians were trained identically. Because there was no window of opportunity for “creative liturgy” to accommodate different cultures and customs, etc., there was likely no liturgical abuse.

The whole premise of Vatican II was that man was ready to do the right thing for the right reasons and no have to rigidly conform to rules - I think that was the error. Man still needs more guidance and rules to follow because Man as a whole is still likely to rationalize wrong doing, seek self pleasure and satisfaction.

Free will I believe means, here are the rules, you can follow them or not. Not following them has consequences.

Not here are the rules, you can decide if God was right or wrong and follow them or not and if you think it is okay then you probably are not sinning.

Of course when I say Man, I don’t mean every living breathing person but that Catholics as a whole were not ready to embrace these new concepts and so abuse in both the liturgy and theology have occurred as a result.

The intent and purpose of Vatican II I never question. The intent of what the new Mass should be without abuses would be more palatable to most of us.

But in the name of the “spirit of Vatican II” the Mass and the Theology of Catholicism has suffered greatly in my opinion.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Crusader:

Finally, it’s not up to you or I to judge the “merits” of each Mass. That’s horribly arrogant to even bring up…

I am going to suggest that not only is it not “horribly arrogant” to discuss the relative merits of the old and new rites of Mass, but that it is something which really ought to be discussed. First, because most Catholics’ faith is formed by the liturgy.

Also, it is not being arrogant to discuss a practical decision of the Roman Pontiff, such as the worldwide release of the New Mass in 1969.

Practical decisions of the Roman Pontiff are not infallible. I recently posted an excerpt from Dietrich von Hildebrand’s essay on Belief and Obedience. Here is the link:

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=13671

And here is a quote from that essay:

“The situation is different when positive commandments of the Church, practical decisions, are at stake. Here we are not faced with the infallible Church. While we must obey such decisions and submit to them in reverence and deep respect, we need not consider them felicitous or prudent. Here the maxim Roma locuta: causa finita does not apply. If we are convinced that any practical change or decision is objectively unfortunate, noxious, compromising, imprudent, or unjust, we are permitted to pray that it may be revoked, to write in a respectful manner about the topic, to direct petitions for a change of it to the Holy Father–to attempt, in a variety of ways, to influence a reversal of the decision.”

Further, discussing the merits of the old and new liturgies is arrogant for whom? Is it for Cardinal Ratzinger, Fr. Brian Harrison, Fr. Aidan Nichols, Fr. George Rutler?

Also, Dietrich von Hildebrand personally delivered his essay on the merits of the Tridentine Mass to Pope Paul VI at a personal audience.

And, in the liturgical conference at Fontgombault in 2001 headed by Cardinal Ratzinger, which discussed the merits of the old and new rites, Stratford Caldecott, a layperson, was one of the speakers.

If we can see that the hierarchy of the Church did something which genuinely seems to be a bad practical decision, then we really ought to speak out. To not speak out when one notices a bad decision is not to strengthen the Church, but to weaken Her.

 

[Crusader]

deogratias:

Prior to Vatican II, all Masses in all countries had the benefit of being uniform. All seminarians were trained identically. Because there was no window of opportunity for “creative liturgy” to accommodate different cultures and customs, etc., there was likely no liturgical abuse.

The whole premise of Vatican II was that man was ready to do the right thing for the right reasons and no have to rigidly conform to rules - I think that was the error. Man still needs more guidance and rules to follow because Man as a whole is still likely to rationalize wrong doing, seek self pleasure and satisfaction.

Free will I believe means, here are the rules, you can follow them or not. Not following them has consequences.

Not here are the rules, you can decide if God was right or wrong and follow them or not and if you think it is okay then you probably are not sinning.

Of course when I say Man, I don’t mean every living breathing person but that Catholics as a whole were not ready to embrace these new concepts and so abuse in both the liturgy and theology have occurred as a result.

The intent and purpose of Vatican II I never question. The intent of what the new Mass should be without abuses would be more palatable to most of us.

But in the name of the “spirit of Vatican II” the Mass and the Theology of Catholicism has suffered greatly in my opinion.

To suggest there was no liturgical abuse prior to Vatican Council II is laughable. Laughable and quite naive.

I don’t believe the “whole premise” to V2 was *"*that man was ready to do the right thing for the right reasons and no have to rigidly conform to rules." What made you come-up with such an idea? Certainly not a careful read of the post-conciliary documents of Vatican Council III…

 

[Crusader]

Brennan Doherty:

I am going to suggest that not only is it not “horribly arrogant” to discuss the relative merits of the old and new rites of Mass, but that it is something which really ought to be discussed. First, because most Catholics’ faith is formed by the liturgy.

Also, it is not being arrogant to discuss a practical decision of the Roman Pontiff, such as the worldwide release of the New Mass in 1969.

Practical decisions of the Roman Pontiff are not infallible. I recently posted an excerpt from Dietrich von Hildebrand’s essay on Belief and Obedience. Here is the link:

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=13671

And here is a quote from that essay:

“The situation is different when positive commandments of the Church, practical decisions, are at stake. Here we are not faced with the infallible Church. While we must obey such decisions and submit to them in reverence and deep respect, we need not consider them felicitous or prudent. Here the maxim Roma locuta: causa finita does not apply. If we are convinced that any practical change or decision is objectively unfortunate, noxious, compromising, imprudent, or unjust, we are permitted to pray that it may be revoked, to write in a respectful manner about the topic, to direct petitions for a change of it to the Holy Father–to attempt, in a variety of ways, to influence a reversal of the decision.”

Further, discussing the merits of the old and new liturgies is arrogant for whom? Is it for Cardinal Ratzinger, Fr. Brian Harrison, Fr. Aidan Nichols, Fr. George Rutler?

Also, Dietrich von Hildebrand personally delivered his essay on the merits of the Tridentine Mass to Pope Paul VI at a personal audience.

And, in the liturgical conference at Fontgombault in 2001 headed by Cardinal Ratzinger, which discussed the merits of the old and new rites, Stratford Caldecott, a layperson, was one of the speakers.

If we can see that the hierarchy of the Church did something which genuinely seems to be a bad practical decision, then we really ought to speak out. To not speak out when one notices a bad decision is not to strengthen the Church, but to weaken Her.

I don’t think you (or I) are capable of detecting a “bad decision” from the Church. If might seem to you that you are capable of doing just that, but it seems extremely arrogant to me.

Very much like judging the “relative merits” of the new and old Mass. I don’t believe that we mere mortals are in any position to judge the Church.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not just another service coreographed by man. It’s a gift from God. How is man to critique such a gift?

 

[deogratias]

don’t believe the “whole premise” to V2 was *"*that man was ready to do the right thing for the right reasons and no have to rigidly conform to rules." What made you come-up with such an idea? Certainly not a careful read of the post-conciliary documents of Vatican Council III…

Perhaps I worded that poorly -

For instance - Friday abstinence. It is still required OR there may be a different penance - that gave us a choice - but many took that to mean they had to do nothing at all for Friday penance.

I did not mean to imply that there were no rules, only that there were choices where once upon a time, a rule was a rule was a rule.

Before Vatican II - there was a list of things that were mortal sins and venial sins.

There was no question of did I mean to sin or not. I never had a prevatican II priest ask me if I meant to offend God by my action, etc.

I think what I am trying also to convey, albeit poorly, was that Vatican Ii wanted us to become more spiritually involved and not JUST do things because the Church said so.

Now I must ask you to illustrate some liturgical abuses prior to
Vatican II because I never saw any personally. I did witness Low Mass said rather hurriedly by some priests on some occasions. Otherwise I can’t think of any abuses I witnessed.

Neither of the observations I made in my first post means that I think the ills of the Church would be cured by returning to the TLM nor that I don’t approve of Vatican II, lest someone misundertand my post even further.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Crusader:

I don’t think you (or I) are capable of detecting a “bad decision” from the Church. If might seem to you that you are capable of doing just that, but it seems extremely arrogant to me.

Very much like judging the “relative merits” of the new and old Mass. I don’t believe that we mere mortals are in any position to judge the Church.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not just another service coreographed by man. It’s a gift from God. How is man to critique such a gift?

First, when the Pope or Bishops make practical decisions regarding the governing of the Church they have the authority, absolutely, but they also are mere mortals. That is one reason we pray for them. The charism of infallibility simply does not extend to the practical decisions of the Roman hierarchy.

Thus there is no guarantee that a Pope or the Bishops are necessarily going to make wise decisions regarding the liturgy. We hope and pray that they do, of course.

Further, faith and reason are obviously united in the Catholic faith. Of course this is perfectly true regarding the de fide Dogmas of the Church which have been given to us by God. Yet all Catholics have the ability to think and reason, and it is quite natural for Catholics to ponder the practical decisions of the hierarchy. If it seems obvious that an imprudent decision was made, then faithful Catholics, in a spirit of humility, should speak out. Perhaps the Bishops in charge or even the Pope may hear their voice.

To simply believe any decision by the Pope or Bishops in practical matters is beyond judgment seems almost like committing the sin of fideism. In other words, we do not judge the merit of a decision simply because it was promulgated by the hierarchy. To me this seems like switching one’s brain off when it comes to evaluating practical decisions of the hierarchy, which does not do the Church any good.

For instance, a bishop may decide to build a Cathedral which is ugly and with an interior that looks like a gymnasium. Catholics are not required to force themselves to think this Cathedral is beautiful just because a bishop decided to build it. They can and should relay their concerns to the bishop in the hopes that he reconsider.

A good book to read regarding the merits of the old and new liturgyis called “Reform of the Reform” by Fr. Thomas Kocik (Ignatius Press). I mention this book because in it you have priests and even a layman discussing the relative merits of the old and new liturgy. And it is simply very difficult to believe they are wrong for doing so. I commend them for it.

Dietrich von Hildebrand, in The Charitable Anathema, pp. 33-34, writes:

“But ours is, I believe the period of the greatest crisis the Church has ever faced, …In such a period, every faithful Catholic who is fully devoted to Christ, to the teaching of the Church, to the deposit of the Catholic faith, to the dogmas, is called to raise his voice in defense of orthodoxy. In the first line of defense, naturally, are the orthodox bishops and priests; but the orthodox layman is also called." God bless.

 

[aj10]

For me there are positives and negatives to both the old Mass and the new. In the traditional Latin Mass the positive is the reverence, an inner spiritual focus, a feeling of meeting Jesus Christ one-on-one, an encouragement for sincere participation in Confession on a regular basis. The negative is a rigidity, everyone looking at everyone else to see if they are being holy enough, an extreme political conservatism. In the new mass the positives are a feeling of openness, nice connections with other parishoners, sort of a ‘we are all sinners here’ attitide, parish members are willing to volunteer for activities. On the negative side is the liturgical experimentation (our priest wore a red Santa hat during Mass on Christmas), a “rules are made to be broken” gleefullness (my non-baptized husband was always being encouraged to receive communion because it “doesn’t matter” by an ex-priest), and a lack of reverence for the true presence (no kneeling, no genuflection, dumping a glass bowl of consecrated hosts into other small bowls like they were peanuts by a female eucharistic minister).
I love that I have the option to choose either one - and I have! God bless.