Voices of Moderate Catholicism and the Liturgical Reforms

  • Thread starter Thread starter jesusalright4me
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I reckon it this way: I was born after V2. The only Mass I know is OF. I have nothing to compare it to, and it does irk me a little when so many voices are saying that there’s something wrong with it.
As far as I’m concerned, it’s the most perfect Mass attainable because it is given by the Church.
 
That is fair. I was also born after VII, and only knew the OF until I discovered the EF.

If you want to see why I contend aspects of the EF are simply better, see this link:
https://lms.org.uk/missals

It compares the two forms of the mass, side by side. If you only have a short amount of time to read it, just skip to the Offertory and compare the two. That is what sold me on the idea that the prayers of the EF simply are more rich and, in many cases, express our Western theology more clearly.

In terms of advantages in the OF. I would say that the main advantages are:
-some vernacular
-more acceptance of vocal participation for the laity
-the ability to chant the Kyrie with tropes (which was regrettable surpressed after the Council of Trent)
-more readings (though this is a toss up; there are strong advantages to both the OF and EF lectionary)
-removal of the words “the mystery of Faith” from the Words of Consecration
-additionally, the OF Divine Office is a great improvement for extremely busy secular priests and laity who wish to pray the Divine Office

There are probably more that I could think of, but those are just off of the top of my head.
 
Last edited:
I am aware that Motley Crue was never used. It was just a reductio ad absurdum argument.

All I will say is this: there is great wisdom in the tradition of chant. In particular, chanting Sacred Scripture in the propers of the Mass. The text is objectively more elevated than any hymn or contempory Chrisitan song could hope to be. And the music is written for the text, rather than the text for the music like many hymns tend to be.

Every natural or man-made religion has its own way of chanting what they consider to be sacred scripture. Why should the True religion be an exception? Do we not hold our Scripture as important as the pagans hold their scripture?

In terms of more upbeat music for things like the Ordinary part of the mass, it is clear that the Church has always preferred styles of music written solely for Sacred purposes over sounds that have more secular sources. It is why the opera masses of the 19th century had to be done away with. The opera masses continue to this day, only the genre has changed from opera to, well, new and modern forms of secular music.

Vatican II specifically gave Gregorian chant the pride of place over other forms of music, polyphony included specifically because the Council Fathers knew what introducing secular sounding music in the mass does; namely, it runs the risk of creating an atmosphere of entertainment, whether on a conscious or subconscious level.
 
Last edited:
The O.F. as it stands “on paper” is not necessarily the major problem, but it just seems to be executed inconsistently from parish to parish. For one thing, there needs to be discipline (and by this I just mean expectations that are actually believed in and enforced) regarding dress code, noise before Mass, participating in prayers and songs, etc. The music, a whole topic of its own, is another thing. It seems like the generation(s) who were really enamored by the current musical selections are passing; the songs are not good, and there are too many of them. Homilies are usually bland, or too jokey, or too positive (it’s all love and heaven!). Dress code for cantors, EMHCs, lectors, altar servers is rarely enforced (gotta love the Priest reading the Gospel and altar servers in Chuck Taylors on either side of him). Enough of the “minimalist” approach to art and icons, which does nothing to raise anyone’s thoughts toward God (“but we’re so humble, we just need this cross made of sticks gathered on the parish property!”).

Overall, the theme of most parishes (read: pastors) seems to be: we don’t want to offend anyone. You can wear what you want, participate when you want, and the choir will sing songs about how special we all are, and I’m going to tell you you’re going to heaven no matter what.
 
Last edited:
Well, I actually disagree. At least in terms of music. The fact that the OF on paper actually gives us the ability to select a hymn over the proper chants/psalms given to us by the Church is a problem.

The same thing goes with all the other options the OF gives us. There are so many options. The options were put there for pastoral purposes, but honestly, how unpastoral is it to spend a little more time praying a longer Eucharistic Prayer? I truly believe that the OF suffers from “optionitis”. With so many options, usually the easiest ones get chosen. And there is absolutely no predictability.

I used to try to follow the OF with a handmissal, since I find that reading the words that are being said, even when we are speaking in the vernacular, helps me to participate better. It was chaos. I had to be prepared to flip to Penentential Rite A, B, or C. Sometimes, I had to be prepared to select from the 4 different prefaces allowed for that day. I am actually somewhat glad in some ways that the general custom is to use EPII all the time; at least that created some predictability.

In the EF, you know what you are getting every time you go. There is a strong sense of unity. When there is a visiting priest, I know exactly what he is going to be saying for the prayers, because he does not have all of those options.
 
jesusalright4me said:
The text is objectively more elevated than any hymn or contempory Chrisitan song could hope to be.
Click to expand...
Interesting use of “objectively” and “elevated”. Without the definition of the latter, the first may or may not be true. Does the word mean containing more doctrinal teaching? Many hymns are loaded with substance. Does it simply mean older? Or does it mean that it is based in Latin? Then there is the question of what actually brings us closer to God. That is the way the word is normally used, and that is most decidedly not objective.

BTW, the reason I do not accept the argument that if anything else is allowed (except what is specifically stated) then everything will be allowed, is simply that it won’t. I do not believe it. As I have stated, my only concern is local implementation, and I can assure you, it does not apply here.
 
Last edited:
Good point on the too many options. I prefer EF but more often attend OF. I think there is still a way to use options but keep it reverent. And to me, setting the tone with silence, proper dress, and traditional art and icons is a good start. A homily on the reality of hell - for all the reasons that God says we can wind up there - would help too, at least once in a while. Otherwise there is no point in salvation, evangelizing etc.
 
pnewton said:
Interesting use of “objectively” and “elevated”. Without the definition of the latter, the first may or may not be true.
Click to expand...
Well, the Propers are always listed first in the order of possible musical options. And they are either the actual scriptures, or the texts composed by the Church herself, as opposed to e.g. some composer in St. Louis.

Whenever I explain what the Propers are (and most Catholics, sadly, have never heard of them), I summarize by describing them as the 4th Reading of the Mass, designed to tie in to the other readings and to the particular character of that Mass.
 
jesusalright4me said:
I used to try to follow the OF with a handmissal, since I find that reading the words that are being said, even when we are speaking in the vernacular, helps me to participate better. It was chaos. I had to be prepared to flip to Penentential Rite A, B, or C. Sometimes, I had to be prepared to select from the 4 different prefaces allowed for that day. I am actually somewhat glad in some ways that the general custom is to use EPII all the time; at least that created some predictability.
Click to expand...
I once read that combining all the possible options allowed in the OF, there are over a million ways it can be celebrated. As to the accuracy of that number, I have no idea, but the point is well made in any case. There is no doubt that one could attend a different form of the OF every Sunday for one’s entire life.
 
snarflemike said:
I used to try to follow the OF with a handmissal, since I find that reading the words that are being said, even when we are speaking in the vernacular, helps me to participate better
Click to expand...
I use a missal at the OF also. I just quit using it during EP because it is always EP 2.
 
I had to calm down a bit as yesterday was my first day at CAF and I was only allowed a limited number of replies on the first day. 🙂

Regarding the options offered, I think it does add to the richness of the liturgical worship. Which is excellent if people are aware of what’s going on.

I think the bigger problem with mass attendance today is that very few Catholics fully understand the significance of the Holy Mass and appreciate what it means to have your savior physically present.

To me that remains the greatest advantage of EF. Even though you may not understand most of what the priest is praying in Latin, I had a feeling that back in the old days, Catholics knew what the Mass was and the prayers and chants were simply there to appreciate God being present among his people.

For starters, I think more priests should speak about the Mass as the heaven on Earth and how everything else pales in comparison to it. That itself will see many more converts to EF. As saints have said time and again, it is Mass that sustains everything. This is what Vatican 2 says as well. But if feel this is not emphasized enough.

What attracted me to the faith was its mystic nature. Priests should speak of the mass as if they would die for it. Even as a layman, sometimes I’m so moved by the mass that I have desire to be a martyr. To me all morality and theology flows from God’s sacrifice made real during the mass.
 
All I can say is that I recently bought Abp. Bugnini’s book “The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975”. I’m about half way through. It’s an eye-opener. As was “From Breviary to Liturgy of the Hours” by Stanislaus Campbell.

My take-away so far is that “traditionalists” grossly oversimplify the reform of the Liturgy. Abp. Bugnini isn’t the boogeyman. It was a consilium made up of liturgical and doctrinal experts, with considerable involvement of the Curia and the Holy Father himself who would hand-write notes that would be sent back on various manuscripts. He also greatly influenced the work, quick to veto something here, or request something there (which should put to rest the meme about him crying when discovering he approved the abolishment of the Octave of Pentecost; he was far too involved in the process for that to happen).

And lest anyone say that this is proof that it was a “liturgy designed by committee”, so too was the Mass of Pius V (Tridentine). It was designed by a commission led by Cardinal Guglielmo Sirleto:
He collaborated in the publication of the Roman Catechism, presided over the Commissions for the reform of Roman Breviary and Roman Missal, and directed the work of the new edition of the Roman Martyrology.
Click to expand...
Anyway regardless of one’s position, it is a fascinating read. And a myth-buster.
 
Last edited:
newconvertcatholic said:
Even though you may not understand most of what the priest is praying in Latin, I had a feeling that back in the old days, Catholics knew what the Mass was and the prayers and chants were simply there to appreciate God being present among his people.
Click to expand...
I was there, back in he old days, and we were greatly relieved when Mass and the prayers were translated into English. Then we could understand the prayers and the chants and how they called us to life with Christ. When it was in Latin, it was just a chore to get over with (as it still is for many today).
newconvertcatholic said:
I think more priests should speak about the Mass as the heaven on Earth and how everything else pales in comparison to it. That itself will see many more converts to EF. As saints have said time and again, it is Mass that sustains everything. This is what Vatican 2 says as well. But if feel this is not emphasized enough.
Click to expand...
I agree wih this, except the mention of the EF. The OF does a much better job of connecting our life today to the heavenly life. St Brigid reportedly hoped for a heaven where she would sit next to a great lake of beer conversing with Jesus and all her friends and imbibing. The communion we will experience in heaven is like the communion we experience with friends and family here at meals. The Mass illuminates and supports that.
 
OraLabora said:
All I can say is that I recently bought Abp. Bugnini’s book “The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975”.
Click to expand...
I would LOVE to get that book, but I haven’t been able to find it at a non-astronomical price. 😦
 
Dovekin said:
I was there, back in he old days, and we were greatly relieved when Mass and the prayers were translated into English. Then we could understand the prayers and the chants and how they called us to life with Christ. When it was in Latin, it was just a chore to get over with (as it still is for many today)
Click to expand...
I think that is something some people will say from preVatican II days but not all. More of a personal experience. I know my parents always said they prefered the Latin and I remember my mother saying she did quite well with the Latin Mass.
Dovekin said:
The OF does a much better job of connecting our life today to the heavenly life
Click to expand...
Again, I think this is a personal feeling rather than something that can be said about everyone. I just find it hard to see being there are so many people not understanding the Mass and so few believing in the real Presence any longer.

I was pretty young when the changes happened but I remember seeing it like something had definitely been taken away. I have a sibling who has never returned to the Church, since and due to the changes.
 
Last edited:
How about a hip-hop or rap Mass? Wouldn’t that bring the kids in? (heavy sarcasm).
Maybe the music director could attempt something in the style of Beyonce or Bruno Mars… because that’s what kids find relevant today…
 
Youth may attend events like that, mostly out of looking for fun, but they will not respect it and will not bring them into the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top