Voices of Moderate Catholicism and the Liturgical Reforms

[Dovekin]

This was expressed in Environment and Art in Catholic Worship issued by the US bishop’s committee on worship in 1978:

The entire congregation is an active component. There is no audience, no passive element in the liturgical celebration. This fact alone distinguishes it from most other public assemblies.
The assembly’s celebration, that is, celebration in the midst of the faith community, by the whole community, is the normal and normative way of celebrating any sacrament or other liturgy. Even when the communal dimension is not apparent, as sometimes in communion for the sick or for prisoners, the clergy or minister functions within the context of the entire community.
The action of the assembly is also unique since it is not merely a “celebration of life,” reflecting all the distinctions stemming from color, sex, class, etc. Quite the contrary, liturgy requires the faith community to set aside all those distinctions and divisions and classifications. By doing this the liturgy celebrates the reign of God, and as such maintains the tension between what is (the status quo of our daily lives) and what must be (God’s will for human salvation – liberation and solidarity). This uniqueness gives liturgy its key and central place in Christian life as seen from the perspective of an actual community. Just as liturgy makes its own demands on the environment and the arts, so, too, does the assembly. When the assembly gathers with its own varied background, there is a commonness demanded which stems from our human condition. The commonality here seeks the best which people can bring together rather than what is compromised or less noble. For the assembly seeks its own expression in an atmosphere which is beautiful amidst actions which probe the entire human experience. This is what most basic and most noble. It is what the assembly seeks in order to express the heart of the Church’s liturgy.

This is almost the antithesis of the earlier quote from Benedict XVI. “Celebration ib the midst of the faith community” is almost parodied by “closed in on itself.” “it no longer opens out on what lies ahead and above” seems insensitive to the promise of Christ that “the Kingdom of God is among us.” These contrasts are inherent in religion, but too often only one side is expressed.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Hmmm. What is the usccb implying – that before Vatican II there was an audience? Surely not. I don’t think this document has a lot of relevance, and it was updated by the document “Built on living stones” from 2000. One shudders to think of the delicious liturgies happening as the usccb wrote these words in 1978…

 

[phil19034]

This was expressed in Environment and Art in Catholic Worship issued by the US bishop’s committee on worship in 1978:

The entire congregation is an active component. There is no audience, no passive element in the liturgical celebration. This fact alone distinguishes it from most other public assemblies.
The assembly’s celebration, that is, celebration in the midst of the faith community, by the whole community, is the normal and normative way of celebrating any sacrament or other liturgy. Even when the communal dimension is not apparent, as sometimes in communion for the sick or for prisoners, the clergy or minister functions within the context of the entire community.
The action of the assembly is also unique since it is not merely a “celebration of life,” reflecting all the distinctions stemming from color, sex, class, etc. Quite the contrary, liturgy requires the faith community to set aside all those distinctions and divisions and classifications. By doing this the liturgy celebrates the reign of
…
bring together rather than what is compromised or less noble. For the assembly seeks its own expression in an atmosphere which is beautiful amidst actions which probe the entire human experience. This is what most basic and most noble. It is what the assembly seeks in order to express the heart of the Church’s liturgy.

I think the Environment and Art in Catholic Worship is what they intended. However, “the closed in on itself” is what happened in practice.

For me personally, the issue I have with the vernacular is that it’s too easy for my mind to wander. Because I understand everything being said, I actually have to work harder at paying attention.

However, when I attend the EF in Latin (or an OF in Latin, Spanish, or any other language I don’t understand) I find myself using the missal to pray the mass and to do my best to stay with the priest. In other words, the fact that I have to work at knowing what’s going on keeps my mind focused on the mass and it doesn’t wander.

Now, I know I’m not every man, but I find that many people who attend the Latin mass feel the same way I do. And for those who don’t have or use a missal at a EF mass or OF mass in an unknown language, they can at least pray the Rosary (or other prayers) and link their intentions with the intentions of priest praying the Mass.

 

[CTBcin]

“rad trads” Seriously?

I’m just using it colloquially, out of lack for a better term.

 

[CTBcin]

I think the Environment and Art in Catholic Worship is what they intended. However, “the closed in on itself” is what happened in practice.

I would agree.

 

[PetraG]

“rad trads” Seriously?

It does sound kind of '80s, lol.

 

[Catholic21]

This may just be me, but I notice the roles of altar servers seem to be suppressed in the OF to the EF. Altar servers don’t say the Confiteor and the Kyrie Eleison side by side with the priest anymore. Typically, there aren’t as many altar servers in the OF than the EF at one time either.

 

[OldCAFMember]

I know this may be controversial. Please keep things charitable

It seems that, at least within the world of orthodox (meaning faithful to the teaching of the Church) Catholicism, there is a skepticism growing towards the some of the reforms that took place after Vatican II.

Not a growing skepticism. These criticisms have been there since the reforms took place. Those of us who witnessed the criticisms during the seventies, eighties, and into the nineties recall them only too well, but in those days the criticisms were immediately brushed aside by the establishment as “extreme” and “reactionary.” When enough time passed, and then-Cardinal Ratzinger was more open about his views, such criticisms gradually began to be seen as more mainstream. Social media made such opinions–previously expressed mainly in traditional-leaning publications–more accessible to all.

 

[pnewton]

Yes, he’s a sedevacantist priest, but he’s not pushing that perspective at all

That would be kind of like reading about the humanity of the unborn child by an abortion activist. Perspective is everything.

At one time, both sedevacantism and elevating one form of the Mass over another was forbidden here, and with good reason. Might I recommend a return all the way back to Corinthians 12?

 

[Genesis315]

The more time passes, the more it becomes apparent that there have been little positive fruit and a whole lot of negative consequences–that we tried to fix something that wasn’t broken. And now that it is obviously broken, no one seems interested in any fixes.

And the “give it more time” argument also loses its force as time goes by. Vatican II, by the very intent of the Pope who called it, had a contingent pastoral purpose aimed at particular circumstances of a particular time (which he described in his addresses convoking and opening it). Those circumstances were gone almost immediately after the Council closed. In fact, what emerged was more similar to the Tridentine or 19th century period, than that brief period of tranquility Vatican II’s decisions were geared toward.

To extend Pope John’s analogy, we threw open the windows when the weather was nice, but refused to close them again when the storm blew in.

Obviously, in as much as it simply repeats the Church’s doctrine it is permanent (doctrinally Vatican II is banal in a good sense). But no one would say, for example, the First Council of Lyons is relevant today. At some point we’re going to have to admit that Vatican II isn’t either.

 

[jesusalright4me]

I want to make it clear that this skepticism I see isn’t necessarily elevating one form over the other. No liturgy, save for the Heavenly one, is perfect. Both the Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form have some strong points, and some weak points. A fruitful discussion can, and should, be had about whether we should have thrown out some of the strong points of the Extraordinary Form. Keep in mind, that in the 70s, as far as I know, little to none of the lay faithful, or even your average priest, was consulted on the changes that the Consilium were putting together. Everything happened from the top down, and much of the changes reflect the (whether correct or incorrect) ideas they had based on their own research about the early Church.

I think one of the best mindset shifts to occur after Vatican II was more emphasis on the universal call to holiness and the universal priesthood. This is our Church, not simply the Church of the religious. Can we change anything directly through our own power? No. Is the Church a democracy? No. But we can, and ought to talk about the problems we perceive if we are gifted with the resources and passion for it, so as long as it is all kept in perspective and done in charity rather than out of a place of pride. Official decrees may happen from the top down in the Church, but that doesn’t mean the faithful shouldn’t speak up when they see something amiss.

 

[Dovekin]

when I attend the EF in Latin (or an OF in Latin, Spanish, or any other language I don’t understand) I find myself using the missal to pray the mass and to do my best to stay with the priest. In other words, the fact that I have to work at knowing what’s going on keeps my mind focused on the mass and it doesn’t wander.

This is the fruit of V2, which called for greater participation by laity. Prior to the Council, there was little encouragement to “stay with the priest.” Iirc there was little effort expended on following the action prior to the Council. The priest recited the canon silently, with his back turned toward the people, sometimes behind a roodscreen or iconostasis… Bells would ring at the consecration to draw people back to what the priest was doing.

Criticisms of Vatican II are usually not rejections of your attentiveness, but blanket denials are. What is unfortunate today is the emphasis placed on opposition to V2. Critiques often ignore the substance of the changes, like fuller participation or the Church as the People of God, in order to concentrate on ephemera, like language or orientation.

What is needed is a fuller implementation of Vatican 2, not any kind of retreat. Rituals centered on God have to embrace the people God loves. The theology has to be learned, not repudiated. And people need to recognize how false it is to say “that we tried to fix something that wasn’t broken.”

 

[newconvertcatholic]

My first comment on CAF. I am a new convert, as my username suggests. (I was baptized 3 years ago and received into the church 2 years ago).

I always found the debate about Vatican 2 confusing as I joined the church.

For a while, I didn’t understand the animosity on both sides and quite frankly found it unhelpful to larger cause (evangelizing the world and sanctification of souls).

That said, for about a year now, I have been frequenting the TLM and honestly, it seems like a completely different mass experience and I feel like there is more silence and I pray better. I am also more honest in my prayers.

I felt that for those who were used to EF, OF would have a been a big change (good or bad, depending on the person). So in that light, I find that the liturgists were a bit too rash to move to the OF. But I also think that Vatican 2 gave us a lot of theologically rich documents and we should be grateful for that.

So I’m moderate I guess. I go to mass in both forms. I used avoid the topic but now I see it as necessary because liturgy is the heart of what we believe. I feel more and more people are taking my view. We need a liturgy that makes saints. This for me, is really not about politics or which pope you like, but how best to love our Lord.

 

[jesusalright4me]

Well, it is worth mentioning that the message of unification is reinforced rather well when everyone is facing the same direction.

Imagine a large crowd protesting, all shouting the same thing, outside of governmental building. Now, unless the crowd is immense enough to surround the entire building, chances are they all face the same direction towards the window of the particular politician they wish to protest. We say they are unified.

The mass isn’t a protest, but it is the best analogy I can think of. True enough, God does not occupy space in the way the politician does, but everyone facing the same direction for mass shows a striking unity in prayer directed towards the Trinity. It is something that I see lost in every versus populum mass I go to. As a child, I recall legitimately thinking that some of the prayers addressed to God were addressed to me, because the body language of the priest facing us naturally gave that message.

It is worth mentioning that, as far as I know, all of the ancient rites of the Church have parts whispered by the priest to God. Even the Ordinary Form does (“Wash me Lord from my iniquities and cleanse me from my sins”). I contend this is okay because the priest is not speaking to us, but he is speaking to God. It is quite fitting that the Eucharistic Prayer is spoken quietly from that perspective.

In terms of active participation, I agree, it is good for the faithful to say the responses and keep up with the priest if that is how they best participate. Whenever I go to Low Mass, I whisper most of the responses along with the altar servers. This indeed is a great fruit of the Ordinary Form.

 

[Dovekin]

Everyone in the OF faces the altar. Or the ambo. Or the chair. It is only the imposition of external directions that creates disunity.

Silent prayers were mentioned only because they thwart attentiveness. If the object is to participate with the priest, that is a problem. That does not mean all prayers have to be heard.

 

[PetraG]

This may just be me, but I notice the roles of altar servers seem to be suppressed in the OF to the EF. Altar servers don’t say the Confiteor and the Kyrie Eleison side by side with the priest anymore. Typically, there aren’t as many altar servers in the OF than the EF at one time either.

The truth is that a lot of parishes have as many altar servers as they can scare up. Sometimes two is all they can manage, even if they would like four. But yes, there is typically not enough for the altar servers to do to need more than three on a Sunday in Ordinary Time (as opposed to a day when incense would be used). The duties can be distributed to use more than that and the priest can specify the way he wants things done to use more than that, but three can usually manage all the duties without anyone having to scramble to do all they have to do.

One factor: there are many children and families with scheduled activities that impinge on their ability to attend any Sunday Mass where they are needed, whereas in the past a parish typically didn’t have a Saturday night Mass on a regular basis, an option that is very popular with many families.

 

[jesusalright4me]

Indeed they do, but it is more about just facing the altar. It is about the common direction that everyone faces.

One of the most touching scenes I can think of as a Catholic is when everyone kneels, the priest included, at Eucharistic adoration, and chants the “Down in Adoration Falling”. Is is a beautiful scene precisely because everyone faces the same direction towards Jesus in the monstrance, with the priest in the middle leading us in prayer. Does he have his back to us? Yes. Is it done out of spite for the laity? Absolutely not! He is leading us in prayer, as the head of the body of the congregation. It is a beautiful scene because of the unification.

Now imagine if the priest chanted this kneeling on the other side of the altar, versus populum. It is still a powerful moment, for everyone is facing Jesus in the monstrance and singing to Him. But a major blow to unity is done. It creates a sense that we are enclosed in on Jesus, surrounding him, rather than worshipping together. Dare I say, if it weren’t for the priest kneeling and singing with the people, it would give the impression that we are worshipping the priest, especially to anyone who happened to be in the chapel not familiar with basic theology on the Eucharist.

And so the question remains, if there is ad orientem in adoration, why isn’t there in the mass, which is far higher worship than Eucharistic adoration outside of mass?

 

[snarflemike]

The more time passes, the more it becomes apparent that there have been little positive fruit and a whole lot of negative consequences–that we tried to fix something that wasn’t broken. And now that it is obviously broken, no one seems interested in any fixes.

One of the things that really strikes me about the post Vatican II Church is that there never seems to be any interest in evaluating what has worked and what has failed. Everybody understands that if you design solution X to solve problem Y, at some point you need to ask “Is X solving Y?” Then you either leave X alone, or modify X, or abandon X. But my sense over many decades is that, with few exceptions, there is no interest in evaluating anything that came after Vatican II, and often a circling of the wagons and an obstinate refusal to even consider any evaluation and self-reflection.

One case that comes to mind is the way the Church still seems to be attempting outreach to young people the way they tried it in 1969, even as young people have been telling the Church with their words and with their feet that they desire more reverence and tradition and beauty, and seemingly very few want to actually listen to them. Instead, the older-and-wisers engage in the same old eye-rolling nonsense. Just look at the videos of the 2018 Youth Synod for cringe-worthy examples.

 

[phil19034]

Prior to the Council, there was little encouragement to “stay with the priest.” Iirc there was little effort expended on following the action prior to the Council. The priest recited the canon silently, with his back turned toward the people, sometimes behind a roodscreen or iconostasis… Bells would ring at the consecration to draw people back to what the priest was doing.

I wasn’t alive before the Second Vatican Council, however, I don’t think this was universally true.

For starters there were pew missals which allowed the people to follow along. Now, perhaps they were not yet as wide spread by the 1950s world wide, but the OPTION to follow closely was there. Because of the pew missals, I can’t imagine that the laity were encouraged to do whatever.

Now, I do think the GOAL of vernacular was so ppl could easily follow the priest (which is why silent prayers are now said aloud. But what I find to be ironic is that my active participation is greater when I’m reading the missal vs listening to the vernacular. Now I guess I could use the OF missal and read it during mass, but I often don’t get the same thing out of it as I do reading the vernacular while I’m listening to it. I know that’s just me, but I feel like I’m just going through the motions when I read the English OF missal an English mass (would be different at a Spanish Mass). But when I’m at a mass in a language I don’t completely understand, I work harder to pray the mass and I “feel like” l get more out of it.

Now I know that we can’t base things on feelings, which is why I know some people are different then me.

HOWEVER, I’m NOT arguing that the whole Of mass should be in Latin. But if we did the responses in Latin, if priests Chanted more of the prayers (even if in English), it would help to keep our minds focused on the Sacrifice of the Mass and help to avoid daydreaming.

That’s why I’m a big fan of different mass settings should be used for Sunday masses. Have one OF in a more modern form of worship. Have another in a more traditional with some chant and a little Latin. People have different kinds of prayer that works for them. Charismatics should be allowed to have modern liturgies that they prefer and contemplative, traditionalists should be allies to have their contemplative traditional mass.

There should be room in each parish to embrace the different forms/expressions of spirituality.

Just my 2 cents

 

[PetraG]

The more time passes, the more it becomes apparent that there have been little positive fruit and a whole lot of negative consequences–that we tried to fix something that wasn’t broken. And now that it is obviously broken, no one seems interested in any fixes.

And the “give it more time” argument also loses its force as time goes by. Vatican II, by the very intent of the Pope who called it, had a contingent pastoral purpose aimed at particular circumstances of a particular time (which he described in his addresses convoking and opening it). Those circumstances were gone almost immediately after the Council closed. In fact, what emerged was more similar to the Tridentine or 19th century period, than that brief period of tranquility Vatican II’s decisions were geared toward.

To extend Pope John’s analogy, we threw open the windows when the weather was nice, but refused to close them again when the storm blew in.

Obviously, in as much as it simply repeats the Church’s doctrine it is permanent (doctrinally Vatican II is banal in a good sense). But no one would say, for example, the First Council of Lyons is relevant today. At some point we’re going to have to admit that Vatican II isn’t either.

The weather was not “nice” when the Second Vatican Council was convened. Oh, no, it was not nice. The storm we are in now had arrived in force even back then. Good things and bad things, but profound changes coming at a rate that the world has never seen before. It isn’t an accident that 1960 saw the first time the US was ready to elect a Catholic to the Presidency. It also isn’t an accident that we now have baptized Catholics in elected office who put their desire to be given representation of the values of their constituents ahead of their duty to conform their moral consciences to the teachings of the Church.

Based on the changes going on the rest of Christendom since WW II, from the Orthodox to the non-denominational churches, I’d say there definitely was a lot that was very broken in this world at the time Vatican II was convened. The world was in social and spiritual upheaval and many in Christendom were in a crisis of faith. Churches felt the impact, whether they were ones who tried not to change one bit or whether they were churches that sprang up in the aftermath of the changes.

Whatever Vatican II is or is not, it is not irrelevant, at least not to us, not any more than the 1983 Code of Canon Law is irrelevant. Maybe it will be some day, but who can predict that?