We Changed the Church and Regret It

[malphono]

Don’t mistake me; I don’t mean that they are evil. Far from it. I know they mean well. And I am sure that the point about them being a vocal minority is likely the truth, but they are nevertheless the ones that I hear. As I said earlier, I love the traditional mass. I just do not wish to associate with radicals of either stripe. When the traditional mass is more readily available and populated by moderates, I will be there every week in the choir loft, singing the chant that is so dear to my heart. In the mean time, I will try my best to influence the ordinary form at my parish toward tradition and avoid those whose view of tradition is so legalistic that it misses the spirit of the law.

You’re not alone. That “vocal fringe” is what everyone hears. In plain English, they have a tendency to be loud and pushy. But as I said, who cares? I go to assist at the EF. What those people want, expect, or have to say is of no concern to me. In other words, I simply turn them off.

As an aside, have any of you been to the ordinary form celebrated according to the rubrics (in Latin, ad orientem, &c.)? I think seeing the OF said in its most traditional form might also do much to dissuade the fears of many traditionalists.

That’s more-or-less what is considered the “reform of the reform” but I cannot agree that is the “most traditional form” of the OF. Yes, of course the editio typica is in Latin and actually does presume ad orientem celebration, but it has always been very rare to experience the OF that way.

That said, there is still a difference in focus between the EF and the “reform of the reform” OF. I know the “reform of the reform” OF exists, but it’s not commonly done. It’s at least as rare as the EF (perhaps more so now that the EF released from its chains). In any case, I have never seen it, and if I have to search around, it’s going to be for the EF. For me, it’s precisely because of the focus.

 

[HCC]

It reminded me why I don’t attend more often: I resent being stared at as though I’m an outsider and then being subjected to conspiracy theories and whispers that the pope isn’t really the pope and that there’s a great reckoning coming in the church. I resent the fact that although we were given permission to use the 1962 missal, the Confiteor before communion is used. I resent the fact that although the Leonine prayers were suppressed they are still recited after low mass. And don’t get me wrong; I don’t have a problem with the idea of the Confiteor being said before communion or with any part of the Leonine prayers. What bothers me is the incessant need for the people at my local Tridentine parish (and many, though not all, of the traditionalists on the internet boards) constantly refusing to submit themselves to the authority of the pope and the magisterium as though they know better than the church.

Dear Francis B,

I know what you mean by feeling out of place at the Latin Mass. In the Midwest, the normal, young professionals and young families had to worship and interact with often rural, undereducated looney birds. I think as the EF Mass goes more mainstream and spreads, you will see less and less of that. Fortunately, in NY, it’s a diverse crowd who just want to serve God in a more beautiful, perfect setting.

At the church I went to in the Midwest, the pastor would occasionally invite a choir from a local university to come and sing a Mass, usually Mozart. It was extraordinarily beautiful. One evening I attended an event with a lot of Latin Mass folks and one lady asked, “What did you think of the choir on Sunday?” I said I thought it was beautiful. Well, you can imagine…the whole table burst into gasps. “YOU DID??? But did you see them? They were a bunch of !” I just said that I didn’t notice, I had my mind on the Mass. Well, that set them off into a rage and the next thing I knew I was labeled a whack job liberal because I had no devotion to Padre Pio.

I also share your concerns about keeping the second Confiteor, the Leonine Prayers and the priest repeating the Gospel when a deacon reads it–none of which is called for in the 1962 Missal. I personally like those practices, but our Holy Father gave us permission to use the 1962 Missal, not the 1955 or the 1960. So, what do we do?

 

[FrancisB]

What, pray tell, is the difference in focus between the OF and the EF? They are both centred on God. They both begin with prayers and readings taken from the Holy Scriptures and they both have Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary as their central aim. In fact there is very little difference between the “Mass of the Faithful” at low mass and the “Liturgy of the Eucharist” when Eucharistic Prayer I is used. I regret the fact that we have been forced into a perpetual state of Low Mass. I regret too the fact that we have reduced the number of times that we acknowledge our worthlessness and beg for forgiveness, but they still exist. But what I prefer about the OF is that I can hear the priest. I have heard the EF done with the prayers audible, but it is perhaps more of an exception than the Latin OF, and is certainly a break with the rubrics.

 

[FrancisB]

At the church I went to in the Midwest, the pastor would occasionally invite a choir from a local university to come and sing a Mass, usually Mozart. It was extraordinarily beautiful. One evening I attended an event with a lot of Latin Mass folks and one lady asked, “What did you think of the choir on Sunday?” I said I thought it was beautiful. Well, you can imagine…the whole table burst into gasps. “YOU DID??? But did you see them? They were a bunch of !” I just said that I didn’t notice, I had my mind on the Mass. Well, that set them off into a rage and the next thing I knew I was labeled a whack job liberal because I had no devotion to Padre Pio.

I also share your concerns about keeping the second Confiteor, the Leonine Prayers and the priest repeating the Gospel when a deacon reads it–none of which is called for in the 1962 Missal. I personally like those practices, but our Holy Father gave us permission to use the 1962 Missal, not the 1955 or the 1960. So, what do we do?

I think we are very much on the same page. I actually prefer many of the practices that were left out of the 1962 missal, but I prefer obedience to the pope more. And I have had very similar experiences with the music at the mass, but I should point out that the Mozart masses are just the late 18th Century version of the guitar mass: he was an opera composer and his masses are written in the popular style of its day. It may be beautiful, but it’s not chant and polyphony, which are–according to the Church–the standards by which all else is measured.

And as for what we are to do? I’m not sure. But my recommendation to you is not to come upstate. I’m not that far north of you, and most (but not all) of my experiences have been in New York, but all north of the city.

 

[malphono]

Fortunately, in NY, it’s a diverse crowd who just want to serve God in a more beautiful, perfect setting.

Well … the “vocal fringe” I mentioned earlier is alive and well in the NY-area. But yes, the crowd is relatively diverse, and that does make it easier, even when the “vocal fringe” cranks up the volume.

I also share your concerns about keeping the second Confiteor, the Leonine Prayers and the priest repeating the Gospel when a deacon reads it–none of which is called for in the 1962 Missal. I personally like those practices, but our Holy Father gave us permission to use the 1962 Missal, not the 1955 or the 1960. So, what do we do?

I never saw the logic of the “second Confiteor” and was not at all sorry to see it abrogated. One priest I know uses it, and I had a chat with him about it after Mass one day. His take was that “where it was customary” to use it (apparently some parishes never changed their practice after the 1962 Missal was promulgated) it could still be done. I’m not so sure I buy that, but of course the “vocal fringe” insists on it, and since it is (a) harmless, and (b) the entire communion rite of the faithful is was a plug-in in the first place, I tend to ignore it.

Now, as for the Leonine Prayers, those were never part of the Missal at all, so their use (whether after the EF or OF which I’ve heard does sometimes happen) is fine, since they are done after Mass is concluded.

 

[malphono]

What, pray tell, is the difference in focus between the OF and the EF? They are both centred on God. They both begin with prayers and readings taken from the Holy Scriptures and they both have Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary as their central aim. In fact there is very little difference between the “Mass of the Faithful” at low mass and the “Liturgy of the Eucharist” when Eucharistic Prayer I is used. I regret the fact that we have been forced into a perpetual state of Low Mass. I regret too the fact that we have reduced the number of times that we acknowledge our worthlessness and beg for forgiveness, but they still exist.

Yes they “still exist” but one has to search to find the few remaining vestiges. But anyway, look at a side-by-side comparison. And pay close attention to the Offertory.

But what I prefer about the OF is that I can hear the priest. I have heard the EF done with the prayers audible, but it is perhaps more of an exception than the Latin OF, and is certainly a break with the rubrics.

If I had my druthers, I’d prefer that part of the Canon in the EF were done aloud. (Not all of it. There are some things that really should be said quietly by the priest.) And that’s pretty much the way it was done in the short-lived and ill-fated “interim Missal of 1965” of happy memory.

 

[CradleCath]

They’re not unusual. The people in my diocese are much like the Traditional Catholics that I’ve conversed with in fora and in other areas. When I was in college and graduate school, I attended celebrations of the Traditional Latin Mass in both places, and I have been to them in three other cities in the United States and one in Italy, held by the FSSP.

And I attended the TLM., for 28 years before the Council, in **many **states as well as a few countries. It sounds as if you’re saying that it’s COMMON for those who were Catholic before the council, for those of us who prefer the TLM. today…to be antisocial, disobedient conspiracy theorists, who make YOU feel out of place.

What I can tell you from my own experiences is that people at the TLM. are so engrossed in prayer that they probably don’t even know you’re there. I cannot tell you how the traditional Catholics who are not in full communion with Rome…act. As I’ve never been to an SSPX Mass & I don’t consider Sedevacantists part of the Catholic Church.

What I can tell you is the only place that I did not feel out of place, did not witness wilful disobedience, and was not subjected to comments that ranged from conspiracy theories to sedevacanist ramblings was at the FSSP church in Italy, and it wasn’t because I couldn’t communicate with them; many of them spoke perfect English. As far as my experiences have taught me, the FSSP is interested in doing what the pope wants with the mass and rest of the traditionalists are largely not. And I’m not talking about radical groups that have severed ties with Rome. I’m talking about the diocesan Traditional Latin Masses throughout the North East. And, as I said, the responses of self-labelled traditionalists on boards like this only reinforce this view./

 

[Adeodatus]

When the traditional mass is more readily available and populated by moderates, I will be there every week in the choir loft, singing the chant that is so dear to my heart. In the mean time, I will try my best to influence the ordinary form at my parish toward tradition and avoid those whose view of tradition is so legalistic that it misses the spirit of the law.

“Moderate”? Is that a euphemism for… what? Democrats? Modernists?

When I go to the EF, I associate with people who believe everything the Church teaches. That’s not the least bit moderate and you know it. To be a faithful Catholic is a radical position. It makes me sad that you malign the reputations of good and faithful Catholics by insinuating that traditionalists are some sort of renegade group. Especially when there are so many infamous and vocal actual renegades running around demolishing the Church every chance they get.

As an aside, have any of you been to the ordinary form celebrated according to the rubrics (in Latin, ad orientem, &c.)? I think seeing the OF said in its most traditional form might also do much to dissuade the fears of many traditionalists.

Once when my girlfriend Scarlett Johansson and I were flying around on the winged horse Pegasus I saw that they were about to do one on the peak of Sugarcandy Mountain. Sadly the alarm clock intervened to prevent my attendance.

Seriously, no. Not in almost 14 years of being Catholic. Wouldn’t someone have been run out of the Church for trying it? Maybe some priest hiding in a cave somewhere has been doing it, but I don’t know where he is.

If you’re going to bother following rubrics, if you’re going to face our Lord when you say the Mass instead of showing Him your back, if you’re going to use Latin… why not just say the EF?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Please, please, PLEASE, don’t advocate messing with THIS Mass. We’ve seen enough “creativity” re the Mass.

Please read the context of my convesation before making this comment. I didn’t blurt out that statement just for the sake of it. Thanks!

 

[ConstantineTG]

Why? We already have masses for those who prefer the all-vernacular. Where is the evidence that the suppression of Latin helped them understand the Mass better? I think the direction of the Church is now going more to the Latin than to the ever-changing vernaculars, so I don’t know why you’re even suggesting this same idea that failed miserably in the 60’s.

I do not see the Church going more into Latin. We are going more into being faithful to the original text in Latin, but not into Latin entirely.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I fail to follow you here. I’ve heard so many heavy accents and so many homophones in the English language that you would have to give me something to read to be able to follow what they’re talking about. I would much more quickly spot an abuse in the EF than the English OF.

Thats the thing. If you can’t tell the difference, how can you know there was a mistake, intentional or not?

 

[Ockham]

What, pray tell, is the difference in focus between the OF and the EF?

Seriously? I’d expect that question from someone with knowledge only of one form, but you have said you know both. Of course we know both forms are valid and neither is to be insulted. However, to think there is no difference between them is a dubious statement.

The OF’s focus is on the Last Supper, a communal gathering to be celebrated. The EF’s focus is on Calvary, a solemn event.

The OF features laity in and out of the Sanctuary in an attempt to increase ‘active participation’. The EF keeps the Sanctuary restricted to clergy and their assistants.

The OF allows the celebrant and liturgical coordinators latitude to customize the liturgy to their liking. The EF places a stricter adherence to the rubics.

The OF churches are clamshell designed auditoriums. The EF churches are in the shape of a cross.

The OF stripped away many prayers highlighting Catholic dogma and universal sin.

The OF encourages Holy Communion standing in hand to emphasize human dignity and adult faith. The EF encourages Holy Communion on the tongue while kneeling to emphasize reverence and respect to God.

Is that enough for now? There are many books, essays, and articles on the subject should you choose to research it for yourself.

 

[ConstantineTG]

In the TLM, the priest has ‘prompt cards’ as well as the text. Ad-libbing, in a foreign, yet simple language, like Latin, is something you’d have to deliberately do, I think. It’s just the nature of that Mass. Face front, and if you have a problem, beckon over the M.C.

With your back to the ‘audience’, it’s much less pressurised. You have time to get it right, without feeling self-conscious.

I think priests are pressued to get it right regardless, unless they absolutely don’t care and that would make me wonder why they wanted to be priests in the first place.

Would it be totally acceptable to you that a priests mumbles through a Latin Mass? Mumbling words that sounds like, but it not quite the words that should be spoken. That is what my concern is. I think anyone, with an amount of familiarity speaking a language that is foreign to them, would fall into this problem.

As for saying the old rite in English: that’s been done locally. The attendance dropped off and the Mass was stopped. I think we’ve had enough of being the guinea pigs of creative pastors, personally. The whole vernacular argument assumes the laity is ignorant and/or can’t read.

I wouldn’t pass myself off as ignorant or can’t read but I still would prefer a vernacular Mass anytime, any day. And I know a lot of people who also prefers it that way, both people who lived before and after the introduction of the Mass of Paul VI.

 

[HCC]

I think we are very much on the same page. I actually prefer many of the practices that were left out of the 1962 missal, but I prefer obedience to the pope more. And I have had very similar experiences with the music at the mass, but I should point out that the Mozart masses are just the late 18th Century version of the guitar mass: he was an opera composer and his masses are written in the popular style of its day. It may be beautiful, but it’s not chant and polyphony, which are–according to the Church–the standards by which all else is measured.

I do think you’ve got it wrong about Mozart. While he and the courtiers he wrote music for could hardly, for the most part, be considered persons of holiness, who strove to lead sacrificial lives, many argue that Mozart must have been divinely inspired. Even if he wasn’t directly inspired by God, he was certainly drawing on the beauty that existed in the whole sweep, the whole treasury of the noblest beauty found in Christian art. A Swedish friend of mine disagrees with me and reminds me that Mozart was nothing but a chart topper, a George Michael of his day…

Either way, a Mozart Mass uplifts my mind and soul to the greatness of God and all His glory and the majesty of the Church. A guitar mass makes me think of Jesus and his “mates” as a bunch of filthy hippies living in a commune in San Francisco in the late 1960s. Preaching on Height St, driving around in a VW van and strumming his guitar while he “trips” in a park, enjoying his magical mystery tour.

 

[HCC]

Once when my girlfriend Scarlett Johansson and I were flying around on the winged horse Pegasus I saw that they were about to do one on the peak of Sugarcandy Mountain. Sadly the alarm clock intervened to prevent my attendance.

Seriously, no. Not in almost 14 years of being Catholic. Wouldn’t someone have been run out of the Church for trying it? Maybe some priest hiding in a cave somewhere has been doing it, but I don’t know where he is.

If you’re going to bother following rubrics, if you’re going to face our Lord when you say the Mass instead of showing Him your back, if you’re going to use Latin… why not just say the EF?

Well Adeodatus, get your Pegasus geared up because you and Miss Johansson are going for a ride.

They offer the OF Mass regularly in Latin, ad orientem, here: cantius.org/go/liturgy_devotions/category/liturgical_devotional_schedule/

I have attended it and I can tell you, even in Latin, even facing the altar, even with beautiful vestments, it is still lacking.

When I was in St Louis in the 1990s, I think they offered the OF Mass in Latin at the Basilica in the crypt chapel and at several religious communities on occasion.

As for using Latin in the New Mass: “The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy“:

“36, (1) The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rite.”

 

[ProVobis]

But what I prefer about the OF is that I can hear the priest. I have heard the EF done with the prayers audible, but it is perhaps more of an exception than the Latin OF, and is certainly a break with the rubrics.

A few things here.

(1) The EF has more rubrics/gestures (genuflecting, signs of cross, bow towards crucifx and missal, scraping particles off cloth, etc.) which are prayers in their own way. If nothing else you should be able to follow the priest that way if you can’t hear him. There is more to the Mass than just the texts.

(2) In the low EF Mass, you should be able to hear much more of what the priest says. I know in the High Mass you can hear more of the choir or schola than you can the priest.

(3) I’ve attended the Latin OF with EF1 and it is indeed a beautiful Mass and the prayers should be recognizable to those who are familiar with the EF. And it goes the other way around as well.

Preference to hear the priest is not a bad thing. And the Church has provided that type of liturgy for those who prefer it that way. It’s only unfortunate that there are not more Latin OFs around, IMO. As well as the EFs, for that matter.

 

[FrancisB]

“Moderate”? Is that a euphemism for… what? Democrats? Modernists?

When I go to the EF, I associate with people who believe everything the Church teaches. That’s not the least bit moderate and you know it. To be a faithful Catholic is a radical position. It makes me sad that you malign the reputations of good and faithful Catholics by insinuating that traditionalists are some sort of renegade group. Especially when there are so many infamous and vocal actual renegades running around demolishing the Church every chance they get.

Once when my girlfriend Scarlett Johansson and I were flying around on the winged horse Pegasus I saw that they were about to do one on the peak of Sugarcandy Mountain. Sadly the alarm clock intervened to prevent my attendance.

Seriously, no. Not in almost 14 years of being Catholic. Wouldn’t someone have been run out of the Church for trying it? Maybe some priest hiding in a cave somewhere has been doing it, but I don’t know where he is.

If you’re going to bother following rubrics, if you’re going to face our Lord when you say the Mass instead of showing Him your back, if you’re going to use Latin… why not just say the EF?

This is exactly what I mean. Exactly what I mean. Rather than trying to reach out to build bridges, you attack the moderates and act as though anyone that doesn’t seek the abrogation of the Missal of Paul VI isn’t really Catholic. Moderate isn’t a euphemism for anything. I reject both the Democrats and the Republicans for their views that are contrary to Catholic doctrine. I have long yearned for a political party that honoured all of the teachings of the Catholic Church. And I will happily take the anti-modernist oath, if that will make you feel better. I don’t think that I’ve suggested anything resembling modernism. If I have, please point it out.

And CradleCath, I never ever said anything about the people that attended mass before 1963. You are (perhaps deliberately) misrepresenting what I said. It’s not that I think the Mass of St. Pius V makes people radicals. Far from it. In fact I will reiterate that I said I prefer it in many ways to the Mass of Paul VI. What I was saying is that most of the people that I encounter that only attend the Mass of St. Pius V are radicals that go out of their way to alienate many more moderate elements in the church that would otherwise be allies. This thread is only proving that point.

 

[FrancisB]

Seriously? I’d expect that question from someone with knowledge only of one form, but you have said you know both. Of course we know both forms are valid and neither is to be insulted. However, to think there is no difference between them is a dubious statement.

The OF’s focus is on the Last Supper, a communal gathering to be celebrated. The EF’s focus is on Calvary, a solemn event.

The OF features laity in and out of the Sanctuary in an attempt to increase ‘active participation’. The EF keeps the Sanctuary restricted to clergy and their assistants.

The OF allows the celebrant and liturgical coordinators latitude to customize the liturgy to their liking. The EF places a stricter adherence to the rubics.

The OF churches are clamshell designed auditoriums. The EF churches are in the shape of a cross.

The OF stripped away many prayers highlighting Catholic dogma and universal sin.

The OF encourages Holy Communion standing in hand to emphasize human dignity and adult faith. The EF encourages Holy Communion on the tongue while kneeling to emphasize reverence and respect to God.

Is that enough for now? There are many books, essays, and articles on the subject should you choose to research it for yourself.

This is the typical line for people that reject the Missal of Paul VI. Most of it, however, reflects the banal way that such a mass is all too often said. What exactly in the rubrics makes the OF more of a meal than the EF? Keep in mind that the EF rubrics imply ad orientem orientation and that it’s typical form is in Latin, not the vernacular. Also, there is no such thing as an “EF” church or an “OF” church. There are old churches and new churches. Yes, older churches are often more beautiful than newer churches, and because the EF is often celebrated in older churches, it is often in old buildings. But there are very few buildings where the EF is celebrated and the OF is not and there are many beautiful churches in which only the OF is celebrated.

The use of lectors, ushers, acolytes, choirs, and a schola are ages old, and all include lay participation in the mass. While some of these roles had been minimised by the 1960’s, they were certainly part of the TLM in its own rich past. The only truly new role for a lay person is that of the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion. I’m not a big fan of them, and they are clearly overused, since the purpose was clearly for use in masses when the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion would be overwhelmed. And as for the practice of receiving communion, receiving on the tongue is still the normal, if not usual practice for the OF. Communion in the hand is only allowed in the US by means of an indult. Standing or kneeling is a different issue, with a whole separate thread already.

So what this really comes down to, I think, is the prayers at the foot of the altar and some adjustments to the canon, including some other options. But what I would like you to show me is how these change the FOCUS of the mass from the Sacrifice that Jesus made for us on the cross to something else. As much as I’d prefer to have the prayers at the foot of the altar put back in and some of the options eliminated, I don’t think that anything that happened constitutes a change of FOCUS so much as one of FORM.

 

[Ockham]

Also, there is no such thing as an “EF” church or an “OF” church. There are old churches and new churches. Yes, older churches are often more beautiful than newer churches, and because the EF is often celebrated in older churches, it is often in old buildings. But there are very few buildings where the EF is celebrated and the OF is not and there are many beautiful churches in which only the OF is celebrated.
.

Sorry to break this to you but there is indeed a difference between newer (OF ) churches and the tradtitional (EF). New churches are clamshell design, without a high altar and communion rails, not many statues, maybe have confessionals, tabernacle in a side chapel, no choir loft, etc. If you disagree then I can’t justify spending any more time responding to your posts.

 

[Adeodatus]

This is exactly what I mean. Exactly what I mean. Rather than trying to reach out to build bridges,

Reach out and build bridges? This is from the person who won’t attend a diocesan EF because of how evil the people who attend it are. Why would I want to build a bridge to that?

Some posts you like the EF, some posts you wish it would be abrogated. You’d attend if the people there were “moderates”, but there’s little indication of what that means.

Beyond employing your obscure and idiosyncratic viewpoint as a basis for denigrating traditionalists, what is it that you would actually like to discuss? I’ll have a discussion with you if you want to have one. Those usually don’t begin with you slapping me in the face.

So let’s start over. Hi, I’m Adeodatus. I like to attend a diocesan EF Mass. Everyone that I talk to there is a very loyal Catholic who loves the Pope. The lady that this thread is about admitted to trying to wreck the Church. We’re all sad that it was wrecked. What do you think about that?