We Grew up with It

[Timothysis]

But you’re making a common mistake. The Mass isn’t about YOU. It’s about GOD. We have this post Vatican II mentality that Mass must be enjoyable to suit US. Wrong! Mass is meant to glorify God, not man.

Yet, the OP of this thread laments that things aren’t the way they used to be and wants things done his way. It cuts both ways, really. The so-called “traditionalists” insists that Mass be celebrated the way they want it to be. In a very real sense, they make the Mass about THEM (*“it’s what **I *want”). Some on the right want do the exact same thing. Many here simply want and are perfectly happy with a reverent, abuse-free Mass. As you said, Mass is meant to glorify God.

So when we turned the altar around and started worshipping each other, we got turned around spiritually, too.

That is a load of nonsense. You should retract that statement.

 

[LilyM]

Brotherhrolf, you’ve spoken on the issue before, and I feel your pain.

Let me offer an experience from the reverse side of your coin … my own high school graduation Mass.

Traditionally the graduating students were asked to choose at least some of the hymns to be used. Now far too many years have passed for me to remember precisely what we wanted to have. Being that I also greatly dislike the ‘a-grinnin’ and a-strummin’, as you put it, and always have, I can assure you there was absolutely nothing along the lines of Simon and Garfunkel, or Kumbaya, nothing that could remotely offend you, among the choices, or I WOULD’ve remembered.

Presumably some of them (quel horreur!) were written post-1900 and were in English. And for that reason alone, one is forced to assume, our ultra-ultra-conservative priest nixed our completely inoffensive choices and imposed his own.

 

[Layman]

Yet, the OP of this thread laments that things aren’t the way they used to be and wants things done his way. It cuts both ways, really. The so-called “traditionalists” insists that Mass be celebrated the way they want it to be. In a very real sense, they make the Mass about THEM (*“it’s what **I ***want”).

Name calling doesn’t win arguments.

What do CITH, lay lectors, EMHCs, the priest versus-populum (and maybe a band up front) have in common? More emphasis on the participants.

 

[Timothysis]

What do CITH, lay lectors, EMHCs, the priest versus-populum (and maybe a band up front) have in common? More emphasis on the participants.

You cannot be so simplistic to think that “More emphasis on the participants” (which is inaccurate in itself) equates to “worshipping each other.”

It is this type of disingenuous attitude that spurs on the “my Jesus is better than your Jesus” mentality that permeates the Traditional Catholicism forum.

Name calling doesn’t win arguments.

Neither does false accusations of “worshipping each other.”

 

[malphono]

Brotherhrolf, you’ve spoken on the issue before, and I feel your pain.

Let me offer an experience from the reverse side of your coin … my own high school graduation Mass.

Traditionally the graduating students were asked to choose at least some of the hymns to be used. Now far too many years have passed for me to remember precisely what we wanted to have. Being that I also greatly dislike the ‘a-grinnin’ and a-strummin’, as you put it, and always have, I can assure you there was absolutely nothing along the lines of Simon and Garfunkel, or Kumbaya, nothing that could remotely offend you, among the choices, or I WOULD’ve remembered.

Presumably some of them (quel horreur!) were written post-1900 and were in English. And for that reason alone, one is forced to assume, our ultra-ultra-conservative priest nixed our completely inoffensive choices and imposed his own.

Let me add my high school graduation “Mass” and let me note here that it was before the fateful “1st Sunday of Advent 1968” so it was still (technically) under the “interim Missal” of 1965. Of course the table was already there, the priest was already in tie-dyed felt “vestments” and the burlap banners were a’hangin and the guitars a’strummin … it all still brings shivers to my spine.

Anyway, that service was (what else?) all “Kumbaya” and “Here we are” and “We are Yours” and “Sons of God” etc. And of course Sister Mary Miniskirt was just thrilled to death that the graduation class was so in the (ugh) “Spirit of Vatican II.” Yeah, well, for her information, not all of it was. A number of us refused to attend and guess what? We were told in no uncertain terms with our diplomas would be withheld if we didn’t. So much for the so-called “spirit of Vatican II” … Sounds more like “my way or the highway” than anything else, but I digress.

That little horror story leads me to say this: did the “1st Sunday of Advent 1968” really mean much of anything? All that fateful Sunday did was introduce a weaker form of the Roman liturgy (weaker than even that of 1965). The first of the liturgical oddities (or “novelties” or “aberrations” – take your pick of words) were already in place. What that Sunday did was allow those “oddities” to proliferate at an even faster pace. And it’s been downhill from there.

 

[Sancto_Spiritu]

Yet, the OP of this thread laments that things aren’t the way they used to be and wants things done his way. It cuts both ways, really. The so-called “traditionalists” insists that Mass be celebrated the way they want it to be. In a very real sense, they make the Mass about THEM (*“it’s what **I ***want”). Some on the right want do the exact same thing. Many here simply want and are perfectly happy with a reverent, abuse-free Mass. As you said, Mass is meant to glorify God.

That is a load of nonsense. You should retract that statement.

Nonsense, huh? Take a quick look at the amount of Catholics who regularly attended Mass in 1940 and then 1970 and then 1980 and then 1990 and then 2000. Then try to make the argument that Catholic spirituality has increased. I dare you.

 

[Layman]

I didn’t say we were “worshipping each other”. I want more focus on The Lord and less on the participants. Another poster said that, but they were taking dramatic licence. It’s and overstatement, a turn of phrase, but if you spend a lot of time looking at the participants, and responding to the priest most of the time, with him facing you most of the time, and a laywoman hands you the host and there’s a band or pianist right up there, then it kind of looks like thats what we’re doing, so the phrase is pertinent.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

Nonsense, huh? Take a quick look at the amount of Catholics who regularly attended Mass in 1940 and then 1970 and then 1980 and then 1990 and then 2000. Then try to make the argument that Catholic spirituality has increased. I dare you.

By it’s fruits you shall know it…

 

[Timothysis]

Nonsense, huh? Take a quick look at the amount of Catholics who regularly attended Mass in 1940 and then 1970 and then 1980 and then 1990 and then 2000. Then try to make the argument that Catholic spirituality has increased. I dare you.

Newsflash: It isn’t 1940 anymore. If you think that there hasn’t been a significant shift in the dynamic of society since the 1960’s, then you are only kidding yourself. Furthermore, if you think that the answer for getting modern-day lapsed, cafeteria catholics back into church and living a true, catholic life is a return to the latin Mass, then you are even more misguided than I originally thought.

Believe it or not, there have been other times throughout the centuries when Catholic spirituality waxed and waned; there is nothing new under the sun. But for you to say that the Pauline Mass resulted in the new experience of “worshipping each other” is beyond reason and intelligence. Not all pre-Vatican II catholics went to mass every Sunday, obeyed the Lenten fast, abstained from illicit sex or believed everything the church taught. Are you so eager to dismiss them, too?

 

[bpbasilphx]

Nonsense, huh? Take a quick look at the amount of Catholics who regularly attended Mass in 1940 and then 1970 and then 1980 and then 1990 and then 2000. Then try to make the argument that Catholic spirituality has increased. I dare you.

Attendance has fallen in Orthodox Churches, too, and there was never the liturgical upset suffered in the Latin Church.

Still think the NO is to blame?

 

[thunderballs75]

Newsflash: It isn’t 1940 anymore. If you think that there hasn’t been a significant shift in the dynamic of society since the 1960’s, then you are only kidding yourself. Furthermore, if you think that the answer for getting modern-day lapsed, cafeteria catholics back into church and living a true, catholic life is a return to the latin Mass, then you are even more misguided than I originally thought.

Believe it or not, there have been other times throughout the centuries when Catholic spirituality waxed and waned; there is nothing new under the sun. But for you to say that the Pauline Mass resulted in the new experience of “worshipping each other” is beyond reason and intelligence. Not all pre-Vatican II catholics went to mass every Sunday, obeyed the Lenten fast, abstained from illicit sex or believed everything the church taught. Are you so eager to dismiss them, too?

Honestly, the statistics prove that it was not as bad then as it is now. There were 75% of people at Sunday Mass. But you are right, it has never been perfect. There was a major shift in society.

The problem is how the Church reacted to this. Rather than fighting secularism and relativism, the Church embraced it to a certain extent. The Novus Ordo Missae allowed the innovations of guitar liturgy, altar girls, “nicer” homilies, lay ministers when unnecessary, Communion in the hand, and it did not only allow but helped push forward the destruction of belief in the Eucharist. The embracing of false religions, kissing Qurans, praying in Jewish synagogues, and allowing further celebration with protestants helped to push the idea that religions are equal.

And of course, the huge amount of options in the liturgy reversed the idea of one liturgy throughout the Latin Rite. The original point of the Tridentine Mass was to create uniformity so that all in the Western Church would worship the same way, and that no protestant additions could pervert the Mass. What happens when we destroy uniformity and replace it with “options”? The Mass becomes protestantized. Nobody does Mass the same way. The Mass of Paul VI and the effects of Vatican II represent a complete reversal of what St. Pius V wanted.

 

[Timothysis]

The Novus Ordo Missae allowed the innovations of guitar liturgy, altar girls, “nicer” homilies, lay ministers when unnecessary, Communion in the hand, and it did not only allow but helped push forward the destruction of belief in the Eucharist.

Does the missal allow it or is the product of less than traditionally minded priests? Please show me where the Pauline Missal calls for "guitar liturgy, altar girls, “nicer” homilies, lay ministers when unnecessary, Communion in the hand."

The embracing of false religions, kissing Qurans, praying in Jewish synagogues, and allowing further celebration with protestants helped to push the idea that religions are equal.

Your opinion. It is ironic to me, though, that the notion of “embracing of false religions, kissing Qurans, praying in Jewish synagogues,” has supposedly been so detrimental to catholicism today but the constant reiteration of traditional catholic teaching from Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI are met with an unimpressed sigh from most circles. Why is it the pope can be so influential when doing things that you do not approve of but is practically ignored when following traditional catholic thought?

And of course, the huge amount of options in the liturgy reversed the idea of one liturgy throughout the Latin Rite. The original point of the Tridentine Mass was to create uniformity so that all in the Western Church would worship the same way,

The Tridentine missal wasn’t promulgated until the 1570s. Did the previous 1500 years witness “one liturgy throughout the Latin Rite?”

The Mass of Paul VI and the effects of Vatican II represent a complete reversal of what St. Pius V wanted.

The Missal of Pope Paul VI was issued at the request of the Vatican II Council. It was promulgated in the exact same way that Pope Pius V promulgated the Tridentine Missal. Pope Paul’s Missal was what the Council asked for, just as Pope Pius’ Missal was what the Council of Trent asked for. One can argue whether either was right or wrong but it what it is.

 

[thunderballs75]

My responses are in red.

Does the missal allow it or is the product of less than traditionally minded priests? Please show me where the Pauline Missal calls for "guitar liturgy, altar girls, “nicer” homilies, lay ministers when unnecessary, Communion in the hand."

That’s what I’m saying! In fact, they said in VII that Gregorian Chant, polyphony, and organ music should continue as the main use of worship music in the Church! However, Vatican II and the GIRM have allowed it, though not necessarily called for it.

Your opinion. It is ironic to me, though, that the notion of “embracing of false religions, kissing Qurans, praying in Jewish synagogues,” has supposedly been so detrimental to catholicism today but the constant reiteration of traditional catholic teaching from Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI are met with an unimpressed sigh from most circles. Why is it the pope can be so influential when doing things that you do not approve of but is practically ignored when following traditional catholic thought?

So wait. We are supposed to conform to what the world wants to hear? Of course they are going to like it that we are embracing false religions. That’s the spirit of the world now, as well as the Spirit of Vatican II. Relativism, with a little bit of heretical indifferentism.

The Tridentine missal wasn’t promulgated until the 1570s. Did the previous 1500 years witness “one liturgy throughout the Latin Rite?”

No, they did not. You are correct. That’s what St.Pius V fixed! And effectively the NO has reversed what St.Pius V fixed. St. Pius V wanted liturgical uniformity in the Latin Church, and no local variations. This was so that the faith and Mass would not be perverted or protestantized at all. What do we have with the new Mass? No liturgical uniformity and many local variations. The faith and the Mass have been perverted and protestantized a lot of times. We have way too many options and variations, just like the pre-Tridentine Mass which St.Pius V fixed.

The Missal of Pope Paul VI was issued at the request of the Vatican II Council. It was promulgated in the exact same way that Pope Pius V promulgated the Tridentine Missal. Pope Paul’s Missal was what the Council asked for, just as Pope Pius’ Missal was what the Council of Trent asked for. One can argue whether either was right or wrong but it what it is.

I think that the way Mass is celebrated in the OF, generally, is in direct contradiction with what Vatican II taught, and the Spirit of Vatican II is in direct contradiction with what Vatican II taught.

God bless!

 

[Sancto_Spiritu]

Actually, the Roman Catholics have experienced a far more precipitous drop in attendance than the Orthodox have.

Also, I never said that it was the Novus Ordo itself. I’m saying it is the loss of Latin, even though Vatican II documents demanded it be “preserved,” split up the Church and stripped the Mass of its mysteriousness and a certain kind of beauty that just can’t be attained in the vernacular.

Also, I’ve found almost everything Tim says to be -worthy

 

[Timothysis]

Also, I never said that it was the Novus Ordo itself. I’m saying it is the loss of Latin,

The loss of latin, huh?

Also, I’ve found almost everything Tim says to be -worthy

Back at ya.

 

[Sancto_Spiritu]

Exactly, the loss of Latin.

I find it funny and telling that Tim is bending over backwards to defend aspects of the Mass of Paul VI that were never really originally intended to exist throughout the Church as they do.

And, in the process, he’s disputing plain evidence. Though we don’t have completely reliable data, there is a wealth of information to be found on Catholic blogs, in Catholic publications, and in our own parishes, that tell us the extraordinary form is garnering an overwhelming number of young people compared to the ordinary form.

Young priests are buying cassocks in droves, illustrating a return to tradition in the ranks of young priests. Some companies have stopped manufacturing them because they’ve gotten overwhelmed with the requests. Organizations like the FSSP are stretched thin because they’re in such high demand. Dioceses that hold fast to tradition have been garnering more vocations than more mainstream dioceses and liberal dioceses.

According to my own anecdotal evidence- of the approx. 150 people who attend my EF form Mass each Sunday, it’s safe to say that 125 are under the age of 30, and 75 are under the age of 20.

Finally, Tim said before that the “traditionalists” want Mass celebrated only the way they desire. Well, in the case of the vast majority of “traditionalists” who are in communion with Rome, that’s exactly right! They want the Mass celebrated according to the RUBRICS! If Tim has a problem with this, he has deeper issues to confront.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Why is it that people are looking on the restoration of what Vatican II actually CALLED FOR and claiming it’s an attempt to impose ‘the past’ onto the present?

Fact: Vatican II did not call for the elimination of Latin. What most traditionalist people want is not the wholesale abrogation of the Ordinary Form --what they want is for it to be celebrated as it was intended to be, AND that the Extraordinary Form be celebrated as it was intended to be.

What most traditionalist people do NOT want to see is the Extraordinary Form maligned, the practices of themselves and their forebears sneered at, their piety insulted, and their concerns dismissed as an attempt to 'impose medieval times onto ‘modern’ ones.

Nor do they wish to see continuations of practices which Vatican II emphatically did not call for and indeed disapproves but which were thrown into various liturgies for various reasons-- some well intentioned and some not. Guitars can be reverently played but too often they are not. We don’t want the guitars out necessarily–we want what Vatican II SAID. . .music that is sacred and performed as such.

Nothing wrong with having the homily or the gospels in the vernacular. . .but everything wrong with throwing out Latin (Vatican II specifically demanded the RETENTION of Latin for parts of the Mass), for ‘ad libbing’ prayers, for deleting parts of the Mass, adding on others that weren’t there, etc.

The problem comes when Joe or Jane Catholic try to defend ‘their’ Mass by insisting that they don’t want ANY LATIN at all; or that by golly their priest always comes down from the altar to shake hands, or that their parish isn’t about to abide by some ‘old fashioned’ junk. . . Because they aren’t defending the Ordinary Form, they’re defending a flawed experiment because there are parts that they like. It doesn’t matter that the parts were never called for or approved; they’ve been done ‘for years’ and “we like it, we want it, it was done before and we aren’t going to stop for your old-fashioned misery, nyah”.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Actually, the Roman Catholics have experienced a far more precipitous drop in attendance than the Orthodox have.

Also, I never said that it was the Novus Ordo itself. I’m saying it is the loss of Latin, even though Vatican II documents demanded it be “preserved,” split up the Church and stripped the Mass of its mysteriousness and a certain kind of beauty that just can’t be attained in the vernacular.

Also, I’ve found almost everything Tim says to be -worthy

The Orthodox and Eastern Catholics never had Latin to lose.

Beauty can be preserved, fostered, and attained in the vernacular.

 

[LilyM]

What most traditionalist people do NOT want to see is the Extraordinary Form maligned, the practices of themselves and their forebears sneered at, their piety insulted, and their concerns dismissed as an attempt to 'impose medieval times onto ‘modern’ ones.

And what I want is NOT to see the Ordinary Form (and by implication Paul VI who promulgated it) maligned either - held out to be responsible for all the ills of the last 40 years, which it isn’t. Or worse, held to be inferior and less reverent by its very nature. Didn’t Trent anathematise anyone who claims that a form of Mass proposed by the Church could lead the faithful into impiety?

I want NOT to see the practices of myself and my devout but NO-attending and NO-appreciating friends and relations (and others who have a preference for the Ordinary Form and are surely equally devout) sneered at, THEIR piety insulted as is too often done either openly or by implication, and THEIR concerns (which are as legitimate as any, seeing as the majority of those I know were raised well pre-Vatican 2) dismissed as an attempt to foist relativism on the world, water down and Protestantise the faith and whatnot.

Nor do they wish to see continuations of practices which Vatican II emphatically did not call for and indeed disapproves but which were thrown into various liturgies for various reasons-- some well intentioned and some not. Guitars can be reverently played but too often they are not. We don’t want the guitars out necessarily–we want what Vatican II SAID. . .music that is sacred and performed as such.

Nothing wrong with having the homily or the gospels in the vernacular. . .but everything wrong with throwing out Latin (Vatican II specifically demanded the RETENTION of Latin for parts of the Mass), for ‘ad libbing’ prayers, for deleting parts of the Mass, adding on others that weren’t there, etc.

Emphatically did not call for? Disapproves? Sure, Vatican 2 expressed a desire that Latin be retained among all sorts of other recommendations. What exactly does that mean, though?

I might feel and express a strong wish that opera and ballet be retained, and even given preference, in my city - does that mean they should be performed every day in every theatre in Sydney to the exclusion of all else - live theatre, cabarret, orchestral music and so on? Of course not.

I might feel a strong wish that Peking Duck be retained on the menu at my favourite Chinese restaurant - and even have a strong preference for that particular dish. Again, since when does that mean that I want them to serve it every single day, or worse, to every single customer!

And please, please don’t insult me or all the other devout and orthodox NO supporters out there with some of your misguided assumptions. The fact we might not be in favour of having Latin in EVERY Mass doesn’t equate in any way to approval of ad libbing, deleting from or adding to a single jot or tittle of the prescribed text of the Mass.

 

[bpbasilphx]

The fact we might not be in favour of having Latin in EVERY Mass doesn’t equate in any way to approval of ad libbing, deleting from or adding to a single jot or tittle of the prescribed text of the Mass

---

Very well put.