What was the Mass like before Vatican II?

[BayernAnhaenger]

jeanne71350, you’re coming of age at a fascinating moment in Church history. Here’s my Concise History of the Mass in the 20th Century:

1. • The official language of the Church has been Latin for 17 centuries or so. It still is today. It enables people from all over the world to understand each other. (E.g., at Vatican II, Bishops from all over the globe gave their speeches to each other in Latin.)
   • In the late 19th century and early 20th century, some Priests started what came to be called The Liturgical Movement (LM). They wanted people to gain a greater appreciation of the Mass as it was celebrated then.
   • Along those lines, affordable, easy-to-use Sunday Missals, with Latin on left and English or other local language on right became common.
   • But, many people were skeptical of other LM ideas, such as increased use of local language instead of Latin, etc. Many people weren’t convinced that the proposed changes would have the desired effect.
   • During the Second Vatican Council and immediately afterwards, LM ideas carried the day. A new Mass was created, the Novus Ordo (NO/OF).
   • The result was that the old Mass (TLM/EF) was virtually forbidden for a generation. So, when I was your age, the traditional Latin Mass was virtually non-existent.
   • Then, around 1984, the TLM was allowed by special permission of the local Bishop. Now, since 2007, thanks to a special executive order from Pope Benedict XVI, [Summorum Pontificum (http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b16SummorumPontificum.htm), any Priest is entitled to celebrate the TLM, now called Extraordinary Form (EF).
   • This new, restored status of the TLM/EF is extremely threatening to some people. So, what we’re seeing from many now is a furious, mean-spirited reaction. Thus, we constantly encounter distorted descriptions of the old Mass.
   • The big news: Thanks to Summorum Pontificum, people no longer have to rely on distorted, partisan descriptions. In fact, the partisans are upset because now people can see for themselves.
   • So, the plain truth is: As you explore this question, you’ll encounter tons of biased rhetoric intended deliberately to create a distorted image of the old Mass. Nobody likes to be laughed at; so ridicule is a very effective way to keep people away from TLM/EF.
   • Gotta ask yourself: What are the people who constantly run down the TLM/EF so afraid of? Why are they so anxious to keep you away from it?
   Typical rhetorical distortion intended to make a profound spiritual advantage of the TLM/EF appear silly or absurd. A more accurate description would be: The Priest celebrant and the faithful assisting at Mass all face God together.
   
   To fill out that rhetorically shaded picture: Audible vocalization of rote responses by laymen never used to be considered the main thing about Mass. People thought it was pretty much OK to leave that to the neighborhood boys. The lay adults were engaged by what they understood to be far more important: Joining their sacrifices to that of the Priest in silence and stillness, which used to be called “assisting at Mass.”
   
   (BTW, if feminist complaints about altar boys trouble you, there are lots of reasons for it. Also, keep in mind: all the neighborhood girls had a role in the choir that was quite comparable to the role of altar boys.)
   
   True enough. It’s outrageously ironic that when the words of the Mass got easier to understand, real appreciation for what happens at Mass seems to have been lost. In other words, sadly, the people who were skeptical of LM ideas were spot on.
   
   If you don’t believe me, take a poll after NO/OF Mass. Ask people who just listened to whole thing in their mother tongue:
   • What are the main parts of the Mass?
   • What was the most important action of the Mass? Who did it?
   • What does it mean to describe the Mass as a sacrifice?
   • What does in persona Christi, or English equivalent, mean?
   See? Another attempt to use rhetoric to make a great advantage of the TLM/EF seem wrong-headed? The truth: To receive kneeling on the tongue is one of the most wonderful things about TLM/EF. Try it.
   
   In fact, although many Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion (EMHC) at NO/OF don’t seem to realize it, saving The Precious Ten Minutes isn’t the most important thing. Ironically, one thing you’ll notice at TLM/EF is that, because EMHC don’t tramp up to altar to get hosts and chalices, Communion goes pretty quickly.
   
   So what?
   
   Everything that people who approach TLM/EF with an open heart and mind perceive? :whacky:
   
   I’m sorry that you’re unable to appreciate TLM/EF, Trishie. However, I do pray that the tactics of distortion and ridicule, that have held sway for so long, won’t work any more.
   

   ASD​

   Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar

1. 
   Megadittos!

 

[malphono]

Trishie:

However, people had missals which had Latin on one page, and the vernacular, eg English on the facing page, so they were able to follow the Mass. Yes there was the reverence and the mystery…

True enough. It’s outrageously ironic that when the words of the Mass got easier to understand, real appreciation for what happens at Mass seems to have been lost. In other words, sadly, the people who were skeptical of LM ideas were spot on.

Yes and I can’t help but see another irony in a similar vein: those disposable “misalettes” that are used in the vernacular OF. That has always struck me as being a little odd: was not the purported purpose of the vernacular that the congregation would “understand” what was said? But yet the OF uses those “misalettes” so that the congregation can read along and follow what’s going on. Seems to me the greatest beneficiaries of that particular practice are the publishers.

 

[CradleCath]

jeanne71350, you’re coming of age at a fascinating moment in Church history. Here’s my Concise History of the Mass in the 20th Century:

1. • The official language of the Church has been Latin for 17 centuries or so. It still is today. It enables people from all over the world to understand each other. (E.g., at Vatican II, Bishops from all over the globe gave their speeches to each other in Latin.)
   • In the late 19th century and early 20th century, some Priests started what came to be called The Liturgical Movement (LM). They wanted people to gain a greater appreciation of the Mass as it was celebrated then.
   • Along those lines, affordable, easy-to-use Sunday Missals, with Latin on left and English or other local language on right became common.
   • But, many people were skeptical of other LM ideas, such as increased use of local language instead of Latin, etc. Many people weren’t convinced that the proposed changes would have the desired effect.
   • During the Second Vatican Council and immediately afterwards, LM ideas carried the day. A new Mass was created, the Novus Ordo (NO/OF).
   • The result was that the old Mass (TLM/EF) was virtually forbidden for a generation. So, when I was your age, the traditional Latin Mass was virtually non-existent.
   • Then, around 1984, the TLM was allowed by special permission of the local Bishop. Now, since 2007, thanks to a special executive order from Pope Benedict XVI, [Summorum Pontificum (http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b16SummorumPontificum.htm), any Priest is entitled to celebrate the TLM, now called Extraordinary Form (EF).
   • This new, restored status of the TLM/EF is extremely threatening to some people. So, what we’re seeing from many now is a furious, mean-spirited reaction. Thus, we constantly encounter distorted descriptions of the old Mass.
   • The big news: Thanks to Summorum Pontificum, people no longer have to rely on distorted, partisan descriptions. In fact, the partisans are upset because now people can see for themselves.
   • So, the plain truth is: As you explore this question, you’ll encounter tons of biased rhetoric intended deliberately to create a distorted image of the old Mass. Nobody likes to be laughed at; so ridicule is a very effective way to keep people away from TLM/EF.
   • Gotta ask yourself: What are the people who constantly run down the TLM/EF so afraid of? Why are they so anxious to keep you away from it?
   Typical rhetorical distortion intended to make a profound spiritual advantage of the TLM/EF appear silly or absurd. A more accurate description would be: The Priest celebrant and the faithful assisting at Mass all face God together.
   
   To fill out that rhetorically shaded picture: Audible vocalization of rote responses by laymen never used to be considered the main thing about Mass. People thought it was pretty much OK to leave that to the neighborhood boys. The lay adults were engaged by what they understood to be far more important: Joining their sacrifices to that of the Priest in silence and stillness, which used to be called “assisting at Mass.”
   
   (BTW, if feminist complaints about altar boys trouble you, there are lots of reasons for it. Also, keep in mind: all the neighborhood girls had a role in the choir that was quite comparable to the role of altar boys.)
   
   True enough. It’s outrageously ironic that when the words of the Mass got easier to understand, real appreciation for what happens at Mass seems to have been lost. In other words, sadly, the people who were skeptical of LM ideas were spot on.
   
   If you don’t believe me, take a poll after NO/OF Mass. Ask people who just listened to whole thing in their mother tongue:
   • What are the main parts of the Mass?
   • What was the most important action of the Mass? Who did it?
   • What does it mean to describe the Mass as a sacrifice?
   • What does in persona Christi, or English equivalent, mean?
   See? Another attempt to use rhetoric to make a great advantage of the TLM/EF seem wrong-headed? The truth: To receive kneeling on the tongue is one of the most wonderful things about TLM/EF. Try it.
   
   In fact, although many Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion (EMHC) at NO/OF don’t seem to realize it, saving The Precious Ten Minutes isn’t the most important thing. Ironically, one thing you’ll notice at TLM/EF is that, because EMHC don’t tramp up to altar to get hosts and chalices, Communion goes pretty quickly.
   
   So what?
   
   Everything that people who approach TLM/EF with an open heart and mind perceive? :whacky:
   
   I’m sorry that you’re unable to appreciate TLM/EF, Trishie. However, I do pray that the tactics of distortion and ridicule, that have held sway for so long, won’t work any more.
   

   ASD​

   Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar

1. 
   WONDERFUL post. I’d like to comment on one thing in particular. As one who prayed the TLM for the first 20 yrs. of my life & is doing so once again, I particularly like the ad orientum posture of the priest.
   1. I like the fact that he is facing the Tabernacle just as I am. This way it seems that he’s praying with me…not at me.
   2. It diminishes the presence of the MAN who is the priest. One doesn’t notice** him** so much as one notices the priest at the Novus Ordo. He becomes almost anonymous as a person & it’s much easier to see him as “in persona christi”.
   I don’t think I’ve stated this too well, but I hope you understand what I mean.

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

WONDERFUL post. I’d like to comment on one thing in particular. As one who prayed the TLM for the first 20 yrs. of my life & is doing so once again, I particularly like the ad orientum posture of the priest.

1. I like the fact that he is facing the Tabernacle just as I am. This way it seems that he’s praying with me…not at me.
2. It diminishes the presence of the MAN who is the priest. One doesn’t notice** him** so much as one notices the priest at the Novus Ordo. He becomes almost anonymous as a person & it’s much easier to see him as “in persona christi”.

I don’t think I’ve stated this too well, but I hope you understand what I mean.

To number 2 - Very much so!

It’s also a lot like confession with the screen. It’s less “oh look there’s Fr. Bill” and more “Christ acting through the priest”

 

[3Sanctus]

Ever try actually praying during a Novus Ordo Mass? You can’t - at least not in the way you can during the TLM.

Not only does the TLM facilitate a more spiritual experience - pardon the vagueness - but the fact you aren’t doing as much talking as the priest and you aren’t participating in a dialogue with him means you can really connect with God. You don’t even have to worry about talking to your fellow parishoners for 5 minutes during the sign of peace (okay, that’s a bit of an exaggeration, but sometimes it literally does take minutes and involve actual conversations…talk about a prayer killer!).

Plus, no one’s sensibilities are offended by different people using different postures. For example, we can all kneel in the presence of Our Lord and worship Him in spirit AND truth.

Okay, so I’m a little sarcastic…the TLM is amazing though. Actually just got home from Mass not too long ago and was asked to join the FSSP parish. I’m really thinking about it.

Pax Christi.
Stephen

 

[onetruechurch]

(
See? Another attempt to use rhetoric to make a great advantage of the TLM/EF seem wrong-headed? The truth: To receive kneeling on the tongue is one of the most wonderful things about TLM/EF. Try it.

I’m sorry that you’re unable to appreciate TLM/EF, Trishie. However, I do pray that the tactics of distortion and ridicule, that have held sway for so long, won’t work any more.

ASD​

Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar

“To receive kneeling on the tongue” ? My tongue is not long enough to kneel on. Yes, that was a silly statement but likewise, I think Trishie did not say one disrespectful thing about her memories of the pre-Vatican II mass. You read what she said in a negative manner but she was only stating facts. Having read many of Trishie’s saintly posts I believe she was just writing bits of her memory of the good old days. There is nothing negative meant about “waiting” for the priest to distribute communion. I think of “waiting” as a positive word. Back in the “good old days” before feminism I can remember “waiting” for my date to come around to open my car door. I loved to wait for his act of chivalry. When Trishie “stated” that the priest had his back to the congregation, again she was only stating a fact. She did not mean to say that was a negative way to say the mass.
When I went to Catholic grade school we went every day to Latin mass with our class.

 

[Corki]

WONDERFUL post. I’d like to comment on one thing in particular. As one who prayed the TLM for the first 20 yrs. of my life & is doing so once again, I particularly like the ad orientum posture of the priest.

1. I like the fact that he is facing the Tabernacle just as I am. This way it seems that he’s praying with me…not at me.
2. It diminishes the presence of the MAN who is the priest. One doesn’t notice** him** so much as one notices the priest at the Novus Ordo. He becomes almost anonymous as a person & it’s much easier to see him as “in persona christi”.

I don’t think I’ve stated this too well, but I hope you understand what I mean.

I add my support for the ad orientum posture in either form.

We learn so much from how we do things. The ad populum position has created a big misunderstanding for Mass goers. The prayers and responses are made by most people, and even some priests as if they are a diologue between the priest and the congregation. There are a few places in the Mass where that is so (ie “Peace be with you” “and with your spirit”) but most of the prayers/responses are supposed to be directed to God with the alternating voices like the verses and chorus of a song.

The ad orientum posture emphasises the fact that priest and congregation are praying together in one direction rather than to each other.

 

[mystified]

A lot more reverence!
No guitars, no drums, no parade of people through the sactuary, no food, chewing gum, or beverages in the pews, no Walkmans, no electronic toys…a lot more kneeling (in the Western Rites), with the priest and people of God all facing the tabernacle in which the Body of Christ was reserved. The priest was the leader of the faithful, so the leader faced the same direction as the followers. This is called ad orientem, a symbolic facing to the east, Jerusalem.
The priest and congregation were focused on the central Reason for the Mass. While in most parishes, the laiety was silent, there was provision for a Dialogue Mass, in which everyone could join in the responses that were more gnerally done by the altar boys…all responses, like the rest of the Holy Sacrifice, were in Latin.
The Epistle and Gospel were repeated in the vernacular from the pulpit before the sermon.

 

[Corki]

I’m a teenager, so you’ll have to forgive me. My teachers have been talking about Vatican II, and I’m intrested in the differences from the Mass tody and the Mass back then. I know the whole thing was in Latin, you weren’t allowed to touch the host, and women had to cover their heads.

Can someone else tell me about the differences?

Thanks so much.

-Jeanne

A few more differences you would likely have noticed.

It was common for many people to receive Communion only occassionally - not every Sunday. There was greater emphasis on the need for Confession before Communion and there was a longer fast required.

After the Mass proper, many or most people would stay in the Church to pray. There were also formal prayers the priest led after the Mass.

There was an emphasis on silence in Church before and after Mass.

Mass on Sundays was generally longer than what you probably experience now. About an hour and a half. On the other hand, daily Mass was often very short.

The altar area was surrounded by a rail and generally no one was allowed past the rail except the servers and the clergy. Father did all of the readings - epistle and Gospel as well as said the homily. Usually the readings were done in Latin and then repeated in English (or what ever the local language was).

There were many special celebrations in the parish that were included. For example, Marian celebrations, May crownings, children’s processions for various feasts. These were often combined with the regular Sunday Masses.

Before Vatican II people seemed to take it more seriously to get dressed up for Mass and to avoid work on Sundays. The wearing of veils was more recent in the US. Before the 60s, most women wore very nice hats to Church. Men always removed their hats in Church.

The priests vestments were more elaborate and complicated (I mean that in a good way) than todays. Each piece had a special meaning and most had a special prayer to be said when the priest put them on.

Families attended the same Mass unless there was a good reason. There were not differnt Masses for teens, children, folk fans, etc.

 

[onetruechurch]

Easter Sunday was one of the biggest dress-up days of the year! Back in the 50’s all the gals and moms would buy a new Easter outfit or at least a new hat. We would then wear that hat to Sunday mass until the autumn season when we would wear either a winter hat or a scarf. We also wore gloves and dressy shoes.
Fasting from midnight was not easy. That is one of the reasons many people did not go to communion. I can remember one Sunday when I went to a late mass (10:30AM) and fainted in church. There was a lot of fainting during the late masses. From then on the latest mass my family would go to would be the 8:30
I have to admit, as a child I used to watch the altar boys very carefully. They looked so cute in their outfits. They had a very important role…ringing bells, bowing to the ground and striking their breasts while reciting “I confess…in Latin” and putting the communion cloth on the rail. When we received we would kneel at the rail and put our hands under the special cloth. We always walked up to communion with our hands folded in prayer pointing up to heaven. When we got back to our pews we would put our hands over our faces so we could talk to Jesus with no distractions.
At the end of Sunday mass the priest would lead us in more prayer. We always prayed for the conversion of Russia and we always said the prayer to St Michael the Archangel.

 

[WhollyRoamin]

The general theme of the differences (IMO) is that the priest tends to physically focus more on the tabernacle in a Traditional Mass, whereas in the Ordinary Form Mass his physical focus is very clearly directed at the congregation.

I’d like to make a small correction to your statement: Father does not actually face the tabernacle, he faces the crucifix… which is usually directly above the tabernacle. When still Cardinal Ratzinger, Benedict wrote that it doesn’t make sense to offer Mass to Christ in the tabernacle, because He is no less present in the newly consecrated Eucharist than He is present in the tabernacle. The congregation and the priest have the same focal point, Christ Cruficied.

You can have Mass without a tabernacle. You cannot have Mass without a crucifix.

 

[ASD]

“To receive kneeling on the tongue” ? My tongue is not long enough to kneel on.

That’s funny. I can’t figure out how to say it properly. I guess “receive on the tongue kneeling down,” is better.

You read what she said in a negative manner but she was only stating facts. Having read many of Trishie’s saintly posts I believe she was just writing bits of her memory of the good old days.

Well, maybe you’re right. However, upon reading through it again, I still think it reads like facts deliberately presented with negative rhetorical spin.

ASD​

Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar

 

[3Sanctus]

So the tongue’s doing the kneeling now, ASD?

How does “received on the tongue while you were kneeling” sound?

 

[ASD]

So the tongue’s doing the kneeling now, ASD?

How does “received on the tongue while you were kneeling” sound?

What you wrote sure looks correct. But, I guess you better get some (name removed by moderator)ut from other people. Anyway, I was going for that good old, terse Roman brevity. Not as easy as I thought!

 

[ProVobis]

The angels leading the choir and hovering over the Altar !

Actually it’s the cherubim whose statues you may see around the altar.

 

[CradleCath]

Yes and I can’t help but see another irony in a similar vein: those disposable “misalettes” that are used in the vernacular OF. That has always struck me as being a little odd: was not the purported purpose of the vernacular that the congregation would “understand” what was said? But yet the OF uses those “misalettes” so that the congregation can read along and follow what’s going on. Seems to me the greatest beneficiaries of that particular practice are the publishers.

I don’t think so. One retains more if one reads the words in addition to hearing them.

 

[LexKnight]

Let me preface my discussion with this statement: I am a child of the 80s and therefore do not know what it was like before Vatican II. I am just relaying the experiences of people who I know and speculating based on them.

---

I mentioned this in another thread, however I wanted to bring it up for discussion here (as it seems like a good thread to get feedback in).

Here is what I said in that thread:

I understand that in modern times the TLM can be quite a beautiful thing, but I also have heard stories from pre-Vatican II people who have offered a different view. To paraphrase one of them:

“Some people like to think of the pre-Vatican II Mass as some kind of glorious Gregorian Chant filled with a much greater level of mystery and reverence… But most of the time it was just an old guy mumbling in another language with his back to us.”

A few other pre-Vatican II people were also there when he said this and nodded in agreement. That said, they may have just had a lot of bad luck with priests and parishes; but I don’t know because I’m a few decades after Vatican II.

Also, about the people in this discussion (taken from the other thread to save time typing it up again).

Also these aren’t the kind of people who were really “jocky” at school either. These are people who loved (and still love) the Church and know what they are talking about. I can’t remember exactly who was there but I remember two - one of whom trained for seven years in the seminary before he discerned that the priesthood wasn’t his true calling – he still works for the Church (though not as a priest obviously), and the other who was actually a priest (and not even a bleeding-heart liberal priest that many people here seem to dislike).

Now I’ll clarify here because I don’t think I did a very good job in my original post.

This man was not saying that the TLM is bad. Rather, he was saying that in Pre-Vatican II times it was common for the liturgies celebrated to be of a poor or average quality. This isn’t to say that things are so much better now and that the NO is far superior (although admittedly he is relatively pro-vernacular Mass).

That said, I don’t know (hence why I’m bringing it up in this thread). But I found his statements interesting as it does actually make a distinction between Masses before Vatican II and a modern TLM.

Just as some people in this very thread have observed; there is often a big gap between the guidelines of the NO and what actually goes on in parishes. So after all that, I suppose my question is: in your experience, is it possible that before Vatican II people had begun to get complacent about TLM and therefore it was commonly done badly? If so, do you think that it is inevitable that when something is the norm a lot of people will begin to take it for granted and therefore bad liturgies and liturgical abuses will arise?

I’m curious to know what you think.

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

Just as some people in this very thread have observed; there is often a big gap between the guidelines of the NO and what actually goes on in parishes. So after all that, I suppose my question is: in your experience, is it possible that before Vatican II people had begun to get complacent about TLM and therefore it was commonly done badly? If so, do you think that it is inevitable that when something is the norm a lot of people will begin to take it for granted and therefore bad liturgies and liturgical abuses will arise?

I’m curious to know what you think.

I’ll agree priests may have gotten complacent/lazy in the Pre-Vatican II times.

But, the Novus Ordo was never celebrated properly from the get-go. It was all innovation and novelty all the time. People were shoving the Novus Ordo down the laity’s throats with all the abuses and more.

Liturgical abuse for the NO didn’t start in the 80s, or the 90s. It began with the NO, which is a problem.

 

[LexKnight]

I’ll agree priests may have gotten complacent/lazy in the Pre-Vatican II times.

But, the Novus Ordo was never celebrated properly from the get-go. It was all innovation and novelty all the time. People were shoving the Novus Ordo down the laity’s throats with all the abuses and more.

Liturgical abuse for the NO didn’t start in the 80s, or the 90s. It began with the NO, which is a problem.

I think it is, however, important not to confuse the common abuses within the N.O. with the N.O. itself. While completely getting rid of the N.O. would be an easy solution to this problem, it’s not necessarily the best solution to the problem.

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

I think it is, however, important not to confuse the common abuses within the N.O. with the N.O. itself. While completely getting rid of the N.O. would be an easy solution to this problem, it’s not necessarily the best solution to the problem.

Right. But, I only brought up the abuses in the NO because of your chunk of text, (copied below), which seems to indicate that after growing familiar with a form of the Mass, that leads to abuses. That is not the case with the Novus Ordo, however, as its entirety of existence has been plagued with abuses, innovation, and novelty.

Just as some people in this very thread have observed; there is often a big gap between the guidelines of the NO and what actually goes on in parishes. So after all that, I suppose my question is: in your experience, is it possible that before Vatican II people had begun to get complacent about TLM and therefore it was commonly done badly? If so, do you think that it is inevitable that when something is the norm a lot of people will begin to take it for granted and therefore bad liturgies and liturgical abuses will arise?

I’ll re-state it so I make myself clearer:
You imply in your last sentence that bad liturgies and liturgical abuses arise from a certain type of Mass being the norm (pre-Vatican II = the TLM). With the Novus Ordo, this is definitely not the case, since liturgical abuse and innovation has plagued the NO since the beginning of its usage.