Vatican II

[pnewton]

We’ve had 40 years of apologia and great eagerness to implement the reforms of Vatican II and the New Rite. They don’t seem to have even done the minimum of keeping seminary numbers and mass attendance stable, never mind increasing them. The reverse has happened.

Time to try something else.

As the decline that started prior to Vatican II has been arrested and stablized, I disagree. I think statistics reveal the opposite picture. In any case, I will not credit any of this to the change of rite and commit the same post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy you did. I even try to follow the rules here, the one that I agreed to follow when I signed on, like not trying to promote one rite or form over another, as in, “my Mass is better than your Mass.”

 

[YoungTradCath]

Ok, so I screwed up and edited my previous post instead of posting a new one, so here is an attempt to re-write what I originally wrote.

I’m still a little unclear. When you say “form” do you mean the same thing as when you say "style? I am in particular trying to understand what you mean by the following

I visualize the word form. I see the profile of a vase in my mind, and conceptually, I mean the same thing, the “profile” or, as I said, form, of the Church. So form, style, perceivable outward characteristics–of liturgy, of the Church, of whatever–I mean essentially the same thing with all these. I mean them different on a nuanced level given a particular context, but they direct towards the same thing, yes.

Whereas with Form I mean EF or OF.

 

[CesarAugustus]

Let me put it another way. You seem to imply in your post that Orthodoxy, reverence, and good catecesis are intrinsic to the EF and are somehow intrinsically repressed by the OF. This is simply not true. While it may be true that in your experience the only people who were reverent and faithful to Church teaching are those attending the EF, this is not a universal experience. It is really important to be able to distinguish what is actually causing the problem if you want to be able to fix it. In other words, it is important to distinguissh those things that accompany irreverence etc incidentally and those that are necessarily linked to it. The OF is only incidentally linked with the irreverence etc that is a problem in the Western Church today. People need to learn to recognize that is not itself the problem so that they can begin to focus on what the problem actually is. On top of that aspect of it, there’s the fact that oftentimes if people see something false in someones assertions they are much more likely to throw out everything that is being said. In other words, theres a bunch of people who if they were shown true Church teaching along with the insistance that the EF is the only Mass one should attend because it is intrinsically more reverent etc will not listen to the true Church teaching because they will not respect the thoughts of the person who claims the falsehood that the OF is the root of the problems in the Church today/ is intrinsically less reverent/whatever other denigrating thing people like to say about the OF. In other words, there is a whole bunch of people who will be almost impossible to bring more fully into the Church without the recognition that the OF is not itself the problem. This is an important distinction to make.

That is for me?

I didn’t said that the only reverent people I know are attending the Tridentine Mass.

 

[thewanderer]

I visualize the word form. I see the profile of a vase in my mind, and conceptually, I mean the same thing, the “profile” or, as I said, form, of the Church. So form, style, perceivable outward characteristics–of liturgy, of the Church, of whatever–I mean essentially the same thing with all these. I mean them different on a nuanced level given a particular context, but they direct towards the same thing, yes.

Whereas with Form I mean EF or OF.

Ok, if I understand what you are saying then I think I disagree with your previous post.

Did I just say that what I said has nothing to do with taste? Yes, yes I did. To denigrate a certain style of celebration is not to denigrate the Form of the Mass itself. The celebration of the Mass is crucial to the Mass itself, but it is not intrinsically part of the Mass, therefore it cannot be said that to criticize a style of celebration is to criticize a Form of the Mass.

This has nothing to do with taste.

Basically, I want to point out that the OF of the Mass is essentially connected to the particular style/form it uses, just as the EF is or any other Catholic Liturgy, that is what makes it to be the particular Form that it is. In other words, they are the **essential characteristics **of the Form. Because of this, to denigrate the style/form can also denigrate the Form itself. Do you see what I am saying?

 

[CesarAugustus]

People do tend to overlook religious communities when looking for reverent and orthodox OF Masses. I know of several, including at the monastery I am associated with as an oblate. Gregorian chant, bells and smells, reverent moments of deep silence in the liturgy, the whole works.

I also know many parish Masses that while they don’t have the resources to pull off Gregorian chant, do follow the rubrics, have orthodox priests with great homilies, etc.

Then there are the sloppy parish Masses. We both know of course that the form of the Mass is no guarantee it won’t be sloppy!

We need to remember that the EF is entrusted to priests like the FSSP who have a mandate to lovingly preserve the ancient rite, or into the hands of priests who are enthusiastic about saying it. That’s largely why EF Masses appear more reverent.

Yes, Religious communities! that is a good advice.

The only Novus Ordo Mass I’ve attended that had Communion the tongue and kneeling, a homily adressing polemic issues (contraceptives, abortion, pagan names), was in a Monastic Hermit community.

The thing I didn’t liked so much was the charismatic type music, with clapping and such (but the monks and the Priest didn’t clapped).

 

[thewanderer]

That is for me?

I didn’t said that the only reverent people I know are attending the Tridentine Mass.

I wasn’t trying to claim that you don’t know any reverent people who attend the OF. Sorry if it came acrosss that way. I meant it in a somewhat hyperbolic way as a possible explanation for the fact that you seem to believe that there is something about the OF which intrinsically makes it worse than the EF. Maybe I am also reading into what you are saying in assuming this last thing as well, it is just that this is the impression I get from reading your posts, so if I am wrong feel free to correct me.

 

[CesarAugustus]

I wasn’t trying to claim that you don’t know any reverent people who attend the OF. Sorry if it came acrosss that way. I meant it in a somewhat hyperbolic way as a possible explanation for the fact that you seem to believe that there is something about the OF which intrinsically makes it worse than the EF. Maybe I am also reading into what you are saying in assuming this last thing as well, it is just that this is the impression I get from reading your posts, so if I am wrong feel free to correct me.

I’m not expert on Liturgy so I can’t comment on the claims of different theological focus between the two forms, or about concepts like the antropological shift, so, I limit myself to write about the things I see, like the lack of reverence in a great number of OF Parishes in the city I live. Because of that, I said that EWTN* like Masses are like a fantasy in some places. And I have read about some Bishops that don’t want EF Parishes and Summorum Pontificum because we have reverent OF Masses already or excuses like that, while in reality that is far from being true. Also, even if we had that kind of Masses, that is not an excuse to deny the Tridentine Mass to the people.

My comment about young people striving for orthodoxy, is based on the people I know in my city, in my family, and in other countries. I guess that some of these are tired of the liberal approach of certain Dioceses, or just were reading some Church history and the Catechism and saw the problems with liturgical abuses, lack of a solid/sound Catechesis. And most of these people aren’t exactly Traditionalist.

Blessings!



*I see EWTN and channels like that, and it feels different from the things happening in my Diocese.

 

[thewanderer]

I’m not expert on Liturgy so I can’t comment on the claims of different theological focus between the two forms, or about concepts like the antropological shift, so, I limit myself to write about the things I see, like the lack of reverence in a great number of OF Parishes in the city I live. Because of that, I said that EWTN* like Masses are like a fantasy in some places. And I have read about some Bishops that don’t want EF Parishes and Summorum Pontificum because we have reverent OF Masses already or excuses like that, while in reality that is far from being true. Also, even if we had that kind of Masses, that is not an excuse to deny the Tridentine Mass to the people.

My comment about young people striving for orthodoxy, is based on the people I know in my city, in my family, and in other countries. I guess that some of these are tired of the liberal approach of certain Dioceses, or just were reading some Church history and the Catechism and saw the problems with liturgical abuses, lack of a solid/sound Catechesis. And most of these people aren’t exactly Traditionalist.

Blessings!



*I see EWTN and channels like that, and it feels different from the things happening in my Diocese.

I think your wording made it come across as if you were trying to say more than that. Which is where my response came from.

Good reverent OF Masses are more common than you would think, or at least that is what my own personal experience has been. They won’t all have all the bells and smells, like I said,but they do exist. Maybe I’ve just been lucky, but I have been to many very reverent Masses out here in the states in multiple places. I have also been able to see many OF attending youth who are very involved with their faith and who care about the Church’s teachings. There really is still a core of very strongly comitted Catholics who care about their faith that extends to those who attend both Forms.Sure there are many Catholics who don’t seem very interested in their faith at all, but the Catholic faith is still very much alive, so take heart.

 

[thewanderer]

Also, YoungTradCath, I think this post kind of got lost as the discussion progressed. I would appreciate it if you would try to clear up what you meant by saying the externals of the EF produce more Grace, if you dont mind.

Ok, I’m trying to unerstand this better. There are two ways to talk about Grace at Mass, The infinite Grace present because of Christ’s Sacrifice and the finite amount of Grace that each individual attending receives. If the amount of Grace each individual receives is dependant on their disposition and different forms of the Mass help different people to be better disposed for Mass how can there be said to be more Grace at one of the forms of the Mass? This is what I still don’t understand. It is not becasue of the infinite Grace from the presence of the Eucharist. It also can’t be because of the finite Grace received by individuals because that cannot be measured and depends on the individual rather than objectively on the externals. Do you think there is some other way that Grace is present at Mass? Or is there something I am still missing in your argument?

 

[CesarAugustus]

I think your wording made it come across as if you were trying to say more than that. Which is where my response came from.

Good reverent OF Masses are more common than you would think, or at least that is what my own personal experience has been. They won’t all have all the bells and smells, like I said,but they do exist. Maybe I’ve just been lucky, but I have been to many very reverent Masses out here in the states in multiple places. I have also been able to see many OF attending youth who are very involved with their faith and who care about the Church’s teachings. There really is still a core of very strongly comitted Catholics who care about their faith that extends to those who attend both Forms.Sure there are many Catholics who don’t seem very interested in their faith at all, but the Catholic faith is still very much alive, so take heart.

I have to add that I’m not from USA. Maybe that is the situation from your zone, but sadly is not common in other places.

Yes, I think you are fortunate, because, like I said in another post, when I read about “Ortohodox Oasis” Dioceses I’m surprised.

The people I know here and I was speaking of earlier, are OF attendees. I think I’m only of the few “Trads” in this city.

Blessings!

 

[YoungTradCath]

Ok, if I understand what you are saying then I think I disagree with your previous post.

Basically, I want to point out that the OF of the Mass is essentially connected to the particular style/form it uses, just as the EF is or any other Catholic Liturgy, that is what makes it to be the particular Form that it is. In other words, they are the **essential characteristics **of the Form. Because of this, to denigrate the style/form can also denigrate the Form itself. Do you see what I am saying?

No, because I disagree.

A secret prayer, that is, a prayer prayed silently before the Canon begins, is intrinsic to the form of the Extraordinary Form.

versus

A prayer in the loud voice, the prayer over the offerings, is intrinsic to the form of the Ordinary Form.

Gregorian Chant is intrinsic to the form of both Forms of the Roman Rite. 70s discopop is intrinsic to neither, even though you might be able to licitly slap it on to a Mass in either Form.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Ok, I’m trying to unerstand this better. There are two ways to talk about Grace at Mass, The infinite Grace present because of Christ’s Sacrifice and the finite amount of Grace that each individual attending receives. If the amount of Grace each individual receives is dependant on their disposition and different forms of the Mass help different people to be better disposed for Mass how can there be said to be more Grace at one of the forms of the Mass? This is what I still don’t understand. It is not becasue of the infinite Grace from the presence of the Eucharist. It also can’t be because of the finite Grace received by individuals because that cannot be measured and depends on the individual rather than objectively on the externals. Do you think there is some other way that Grace is present at Mass? Or is there something I am still missing in your argument?

There are two sets of Grace within the context of Mass:

1. The Grace contained in the confected Eucharist.
2. The Grace emanating from a worthy celebration of the Mass itself, and this encompasses celebration skills, music versus no music, musical quality, vestments, vessels, etc. The externals, which are not intrinsic to the Mass, but which are nevertheless extremely important. I believe also in this group is the Grace that flows from the completion of the sacrifice itself, that is, the Grace that flows as soon as the priest receives Holy Communion that he just consecrated, and under both species. (It is possible to confect the Eucharist without completing the sacrifice.)

The Grace contained in the Eucharist is unlimited. One might naturally think that since this is so, the Grace of no. 2 above is not necessary, that it is superfluous. This is not so. Our receptivity to Grace is limited. We can only receive so much Grace from the Eucharist given our fallen nature. That isn’t to say that it isn’t “enough,” it is to say that because we are fallen beings, we cannot receive all of the Grace from the Eucharist. It is therefore necessary to always celebrate as worthy and dignified a Mass as possible, given the circumstances of the place and people and the liturgical rank of the Mass being celebrated.

We should not become scrupulous with these outward things, but we must also not allow ourselves to think that they are simply nice-to-have add-ons that don’t make a difference. They affect the Grace to be received and they manipulate the receptivity of the Grace.

For example, Gregorian Chant is aesthetically superior to discopop, plain and simple. Can people still like discopop? Of course. But Gregorian Chant is clearly the preferred music and is aesthetically superior. Whether or not people like it, the beauty of God contained within it is greater than the beauty of God contained within discopop.

 

[thewanderer]

No, because I disagree.

A secret prayer, that is, a prayer prayed silently before the Canon begins, is intrinsic to the form of the Extraordinary Form.

versus

A prayer in the loud voice, the prayer over the offerings, is intrinsic to the form of the Ordinary Form.

Gregorian Chant is intrinsic to the form of both Forms of the Roman Rite. 70s discopop is intrinsic to neither, even though you might be able to licitly slap it on to a Mass in either Form.

Ok, maybe I understand what you are saying… You are in particular reffering to styles of celebrating the OF that are not essential to the OF. I think I can understand that. I’d just like to point out that what I said still does hold true for those that are essential to the OF, I said ‘can be’ not ‘are’. Although… I’ve got to say… I’m not quite sure if I agree with you on the definition of what is essential to the OF. Why do you say that Gregorian Chant is essential to it? I understand that it is specifically allowed and encouraged, but it is certainly not necessary for the OF. What do you think makes a particular form or style to be essential to the Form?

 

[thewanderer]

There are two sets of Grace within the context of Mass:

1. The Grace contained in the confected Eucharist.
2. The Grace emanating from a worthy celebration of the Mass itself, and this encompasses celebration skills, music versus no music, musical quality, vestments, vessels, etc. The externals, which are not intrinsic to the Mass, but which are nevertheless extremely important. I believe also in this group is the Grace that flows from the completion of the sacrifice itself, that is, the Grace that flows as soon as the priest receives Holy Communion that he just consecrated, and under both species. (It is possible to confect the Eucharist without completing the sacrifice.)

The Grace contained in the Eucharist is unlimited. One might naturally think that since this is so, the Grace of no. 2 above is not necessary, that it is superfluous. This is not so. Our receptivity to Grace is limited. We can only receive so much Grace from the Eucharist given our fallen nature. That isn’t to say that it isn’t “enough,” it is to say that because we are fallen beings, we cannot receive all of the Grace from the Eucharist. It is therefore necessary to always celebrate as worthy and dignified a Mass as possible, given the circumstances of the place and people and the liturgical rank of the Mass being celebrated.

We should not become scrupulous with these outward things, but we must also not allow ourselves to think that they are simply nice-to-have add-ons that don’t make a difference. They affect the Grace to be received and they manipulate the receptivity of the Grace.

For example, Gregorian Chant is aesthetically superior to discopop, plain and simple. Can people still like discopop? Of course. But Gregorian Chant is clearly the preferred music and is aesthetically superior. Whether or not people like it, the beauty of God contained within it is greater than the beauty of God contained within discopop.

Ok, but I guess I just don’t know why anyone would say there is special Grace because of having better aesthetics, which is why I was curious if you had any sources to back up this idea.

Also… this comes brings it back to my question of ultimately, why does it matter then? If it is simply that better aesthetics makes more Grace be present at the Mass, rather than better aesthetics makes it so that the faithful receive more Grace, then it really makes no difference. Infinity +5 vs infinity +10 still both come to the saame amount, infinity. At that point what becomes important is what will allow the individual partakers of the Mass to gain the most benefit and Grace from their attendance. Which as I understand it comes about through their personal disposition. Which can be influenced by the different Forms differently depending on the person. Thus ultimately making the amount of Grace one gets out of Mass dependant, not objectively on the Form one attends, but rather on attending the Form that helps one pay attention most.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Ok, maybe I understand what you are saying… You are in particular reffering to styles of celebrating the OF that are not essential to the OF. I think I can understand that. I’d just like to point out that what I said still does hold true for those that are essential to the OF, I said ‘can be’ not ‘are’. Although… I’ve got to say… I’m not quite sure if I agree with you on the definition of what is essential to the OF. Why do you say that Gregorian Chant is essential to it? I understand that it is specifically allowed and encouraged, but it is certainly not necessary for the OF. What do you think makes a particular form or style to be essential to the Form?

Gregorian Chant is intrinsic to all Roman liturgies: Mass, canonizations, benediction, consistories, ordinations, conclave, etc. Can other music be used? Yes, but it is clearly not preferred per tradition and liturgical legislation.

It can be said that Gregorian Chant is not necessary for the EF either (polyphonic settings of Ordinary parts and Propers, or silent Mass, or silent Mass with dreadful hymns layered over it for that matter) but that is splitting hairs when hairs do not need to be split.

 

[sw85]

No. That is not at all what I asked. I asked for something to back up the idea that certain externals produce more Grace in people than others.

It’s not a question of “more” or “less” grace, is the point. Trying to make the issue a quantitative one isn’t helpful.

Nobody’s saying these things don’t matter. The problem is denigration of the Mass, and the disrepect for Church authority, which is guided by the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity. All at the altar of personal taste in culture etc…

Is it “denigrating the Mass” to say that the NO doesn’t represent the truths of the Catholic faith particularly well?

If so, was it “denigrating the Mass” to say the same thing of the Tridentine Mass, which was the whole reason it was changed (i.e., because it was supposedly incomprehensible to the modern mind, to whom we, for some reason, needed to cater)? If so, why was it OK to “denigrate the Mass” then but not now? If not, in what meaningful way is it different?

I can’t speak for anyone else, but for myself, I said earlier that I acknowledge that the Church has authority to change the liturgy and that any such liturgy they produce is necessarily valid. It doesn’t follow that changing the liturgy is necessarily a good idea, and since we’re talking about prudential matters, it’s not like they’re protected from making bad judgment calls on things. The Church can require me to profess that the NO Mass is valid (and I do, and anyone who denies that it is is an idiot), but they can’t command me to find it particularly spiritually nourishing. I have to participate in the mess; I don’t have to like it.

Re: the Holy Spirit, well, the Holy Spirit gave us Alexander VI. Presumably He gave us Alexander VI for some reason. This doesn’t mean we must all think Alexander VI was a good Pope. Is it so unreasonable that the Holy Spirit would, on occasion, allow the Church to suffer folly or harm, in order to produce a greater good? Personally, I have heard some very convincing explanations of why the Holy Spirit allowed the Church to suffer madness in the postconciliar age. For instance, it’s very clear the follies of the postconciliar age have effectively broken the back of modernism. Who, having seen clown Masses, nuns forming human shields around abortion clinics, flippancy regarding the Sacraments, students getting expelled from seminary for praying the rosary, etc., would do anything but turn away from the spectacle in disgust?

Is it not eminently possible that God gave us these follies in order to shake us of our complacency, to grant the Church a renewed and urgent love of its tradition, to spit out the lukewarm from His mouth, etc.?

Finally, I don’t think it’s fair to describe what YTC and I are talking about as matters of “preference” and “taste.” As I said earlier:

*They are a little bit more than “preferences,” and I think it’s disingenuous to basically denigrate a millennium or more of cultural tradition as if it were little more than an issue of Coke vs. Pepsi, on the grounds of “I don’t like it.”

The simple fact is this: this stuff – bells and vestments and chanting and Latin and tall towers and statues and flowers and art and paintings and kneeling and stained-glass and so on – worked. For centuries. They weren’t irrational choices. They developed organically from a religion that sought to present to the senses certain soteriological and ontological truths. We built our chuches high and tall and ornate to draw the eye up toward Heaven. We filled them with statues to commemorate the saints. We made them beautiful so that we could rejoice in beholding that which was holy. The priest wore ornate vestments and spoke in Latin toward the altar as a sign of the ontological superiority of the priesthood – to represent the fact that we were looking into something really quite private and remarkable and mysterious: the pleading of Christ (in the form of the priest) at the right hand of the Father for all of us. And so on and so on and so on.

Again, none of these things were arbitrary. They were intended to represent (literally, to re-present to the senses, in an intelligible way) the truths of the Catholic faith. If these things didn’t work for some people, it’s because their sensibilities were deficient.

And again, this stuff worked for centuries. When we abandoned it and started building churches that looked like prisons or parking garages, when our priests forgot Latin and started dressing in bland ponchos, when catechesis turned stupid or even actively pernicious, when the Mass started looking more like a pep rally and less like a sacrifice, when the Church embraced obscurantism instead of clarity, etc., everything fell apart. People abandoned the faith in droves, either formally or functionally. Those who remained were basically on their own in terms of passing the faith on to their children, and we now know very few of them were up to the task – the present generation of Catholics is astoundingly disobedient and mired in mortal sins unimaginable even two or three generations ago.

So clearly it’s not just that they worked only for YTC. They worked for lots and lots of people, and the present messy arrangement in words and aesthetics and liturgy alike are not working. So why does the Church owe it to you to validate your personal prejudices at the expense of its own traditions and, clearly, at the expense of souls?*

 

[thewanderer]

Gregorian Chant is intrinsic to all Roman liturgies: Mass, canonizations, benediction, consistories, ordinations, conclave, etc. Can other music be used? Yes, but it is clearly not preferred per tradition and liturgical legislation.

It can be said that Gregorian Chant is not necessary for the EF either (polyphonic settings of Ordinary parts and Propers, or silent Mass, or silent Mass with dreadful hymns layered over it for that matter) but that is splitting hairs when hairs do not need to be split.

I still don’t see why it is intrinsic to any form, but thats ok. This question is rather splitting hairs… sometimes I tend to get caught up in thinking about stuff that isn’t really that important. Oh well.

 

[Southwell]

YTC,

The problem with Vatican II is as has been said b4 that its gone too far. The council said the venacular could be used in certian portions of the mass, like the readings, when the local situation required. It never mandated a new venacular mass! John XXIII actually ordered all seminaries to teach in Latin, more Latin not none! The council said Latin should have “pride of place” this ends up just singing Agnus Dei during Lent!

Gregorian Chant is also encouraged but if no one knows Latin nobody can chant!!! The real problem is that if any music is intrinsic to the OF its very bad liturgical folk rock. The OF has a tin ear. Then there are all the poorly “preformed” protestant hymns. I’d rather have no music than really, really bad music!

I have assisted at reverevt OF masses but I’ve also attended masses where the priest bragged he got through the liturgy in under 15 minutes, no kidding!

Bottom line all the exceptions and options written into VC II - well as they say; “give 'em an inch, they’ll take a mile!”

 

[thewanderer]

It’s not a question of “more” or “less” grace, is the point. Trying to make the issue a quantitative one isn’t helpful.

I am not the one who tried to make it quantitative, I was responding to YTC’s claim that there is more Grace at the EF because of its externals.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

Not really. If the OF Mass can be celebrated with and encourage reverance then it is not the OF Mass itself that discourages reverence etc. That is my whole point. The exception, as you put it, shows that something besides the OF Mass itself is the cause.

Yes, you can say the new rite with Latin, chant, ad-orientem and minus altar girls, pop hymns and EMHCs. But it happens so rarely as to be non-existent for 99.9999% of Catholics. If you’re going to do that far, you might as well say the old rite. Catholics who haven’t seen the text of the old rite might get a few pleasant surprises, also.

By saying that rite you can immediately drop a lot of novelties, introduce fine prayers and Chant and retire the superfluos EMHCs, altar girls and lectors.

Then we have the recent changes to the text of the new rite, to reflect … the text of the old one!

I believe I see now why the new rite was introduced. We had to go through this, but not for the reasons mainstream Catholics think.