What was the Mass like before Vatican II?

[Janechantal53]

To me it felt more like I was witnessing a mystery rather than that I was a part of the mystery. Many people often prayed the rosary during the Mass, everything was in Latin but the homily, and only Priests did the readings. (Often a second Priest at that! We had the luxary of more priests!) It was very difficult for children to understand as they couldn’t read their missals in English as the Mass was being celebrated in Latin. It was more quiet and solemn. We dressed more formally too.

 

[Majobe]

Praised be Jesus Christ,

Trishie thanks,you explained it so clearly.I have never even heard that there was another way of celebrating Mass other than the one we use now.Funny enough I was born in the 80’s but I did not know.
Is there a way that I can get my hands on a DVD showing the way Mass was conducted.I will also ask my priest about this because he can speak Latin.

This forum has done so much for me spiritualy.I thank God for all of you.

 

[LexKnight]

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.

Yeah, I thought that’s what you were saying. I just wanted to clarify because undoubtedly people were going to jump in calling for the end of the N.O. as it is, admittedly, easier to abuse. Which is beside the point.

 

[LilyM]

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.

Well, we none of us were around in the 16th, 17th or 18th centuries. We certainly can’t blithely assume that liturgical abuse and innovation didn’t ALSO plague the TLM from its beginning - if they were present in the TLM in the 20thc as I think we’ve established they were. That simply doesn’t stand to reason.

 

[ProVobis]

It was very difficult for children to understand as they couldn’t read their missals in English as the Mass was being celebrated in Latin.

It is definitely harder today as Latin is hardly taught in Catholic or public schools. I had no problem with Latin in grade or high school.

Even English isn’t taught well.

 

[franklinf]

Praised be Jesus Christ,

Trishie thanks,you explained it so clearly.I have never even heard that there was another way of celebrating Mass other than the one we use now.Funny enough I was born in the 80’s but I did not know.
Is there a way that I can get my hands on a DVD showing the way Mass was conducted.I will also ask my priest about this because he can speak Latin.

This forum has done so much for me spiritualy.I thank God for all of you.

Yes, the FSSP and Canons Regular of St. John Cantius have both released DVDs of the TLM. There should be a DVD that fits your need (instruction for the priest, explanation and commentary of the Mass, video of Mass).

FSSP
store.fraternitypublications.com/cds-and-videos.html

Canons Regular of St. John Cantius
cantius.org/go/webstore/products/category/cds_dvds/

 

[Majobe]

Thank you Frank.

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

Praised be Jesus Christ,

Trishie thanks,you explained it so clearly.I have never even heard that there was another way of celebrating Mass other than the one we use now.Funny enough I was born in the 80’s but I did not know.
Is there a way that I can get my hands on a DVD showing the way Mass was conducted.I will also ask my priest about this because he can speak Latin.

This forum has done so much for me spiritualy.I thank God for all of you.

Bishop Fulton Sheen narrated an Easter Solemn High Mass.

Google it. It’s tremendously wonderful.

That’s the link.
Ignore the de part. I’m posting from Germany.
de.youtube.com/watch?v=R6AOvStZS64

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

Yeah, I thought that’s what you were saying. I just wanted to clarify because undoubtedly people were going to jump in calling for the end of the N.O. as it is, admittedly, easier to abuse. Which is beside the point.

Roight.

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

Well, we none of us were around in the 16th, 17th or 18th centuries. We certainly can’t blithely assume that liturgical abuse and innovation didn’t ALSO plague the TLM from its beginning - if they were present in the TLM in the 20thc as I think we’ve established they were. That simply doesn’t stand to reason.

Right.

And did I claim that the TLM was free from abuse? Nope. Nowhere did I claim that the TLM was free from abuse. Why would I claim so otherwise? I am not all-knowing and wise.

What I said was that the Novus Ordo, FROM ITS CONCEPTION, was plagued with abuse and innovation.

 

[ASD]

Trishie thanks,you explained it so clearly.

I don’t even care if the word order is all wrong when I tell you all: I am weeping in frustration. :crying:

 

[LilyM]

Right.

And did I claim that the TLM was free from abuse? Nope. Nowhere did I claim that the TLM was free from abuse. Why would I claim so otherwise? I am not all-knowing and wise.

What I said was that the Novus Ordo, FROM ITS CONCEPTION, was plagued with abuse and innovation.

Yes, and by saying the above, you are clearly trying to suggest that the TLM somehow wasn’t also plagued with abuse and/or innovation (whatever that means) from its conception - or was somehow less so. Neither presumption is justified.

Otherwise what was the point of your point?

 

[Majobe]

I don’t even care if the word order is all wrong when I tell you all: I am weeping in frustration. :crying:

Your point is…

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

By saying the above, you were clearly trying to suggest that the TLM somehow wasn’t also plagued with abuse and/or innovation (whatever that means) from its conception - which presumption hasn’t been established.

Otherwise what was the point of your point?

LexKnight said:

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?

What I took LexKnight as saying was thus:
People grew complacent with the Novus Ordo, and thus bad liturgies and liturgical abuses cropped up. This however, could not, and cannot, be the the Novus Ordo was plagued with innovation and abuse from the get-go.

Also, I would argue that no, the TLM in the period following the Council of Trent was not subject to such innovation and abuse. Why? Simple. A priest was under pain of sin for not saying Mass properly. In addition to that, the atmosphere of the Council of Trent would emphasize a strict adherence to the rubrics. Nothing of the sort was done after Vatican II.

As for innovation:
Altar girls
Usage of Protestant music in the Mass
Lack of Gregorian Chant and Latin
Using the ad orientam posture
The rampant usage of EMHCs
to name a few.

And, like I said, I severely doubt that the TLM was prone to abuse and innovation in the Post-Deformation/Council of Trent time. The situation simply wouldn’t have allowed for it, and Trent was very specific. In addition to that, the rubrics for the TLM are/were very specific as to what is to be done.

There is the chance that there were abuses in the TLM. However I know of no sources and/or Vatican documents that would point to that. If you were a priest in the Trent-era I doubt you would risk your eternal salvation just so you could go and introduce changes into the Mass. Plus, if you were going to introduce changes in the Mass, you probably would have left the Church with the rest of the Deformers.

 

[CradleCath]

Yes, and by saying the above, you are clearly trying to suggest that the TLM somehow wasn’t also plagued with abuse and/or innovation (whatever that means) from its conception - or was somehow less so. Neither presumption is justified.

Otherwise what was the point of your point?

Hmmmm. This is sad. The TLM that we celebrated prior to Vatican II had the Last Supper as it’s "conception… This Mass “morphed” into what it became…slowly, surely… Like a tree this Mass had grown organically through the ages. Every once in a while, a diseased limb was noticed & pruned. It has been watered by the blood of the martyrs & nourished with prayer & it’s “conception” happened at the Last Supper. It WAS the Mass…not the TLM., nor the NO, but THE Mass.

Pope St. Gregory made minor changes in the Liturgy during the 6th century. He moved the Pater Noster (Our Father) to immediately after the Roman Canon and immediately before the Fraction. He also established nine Kyries at the beginning of the Mass. He reduced the role of deacons in the Liturgy. I think that many of you need to read & Father Adrian Fortescue’s famous work The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy. This little book gives a compact history of the Roman Rite of the Mass from the Last Supper to the Traditional Mass (“Tridentine Mass”) as it was said before Vat. II. It explains the origin of the Low Mass, of Sacramentaries & gives one the history of the Liturgy…

Up until the last council, the major liturgical reformers had been Pope St. Gregory & Pope St. Pius V (16th century) & both treated the liturgical texts with the utmost reverence. Revisions were always minor.

The very idea of composing a new order of Mass was and is totally alien to the whole Catholic ethos & Tradition.

Once again, the Last Supper was the “conception” of the TLM.

 

[ASD]

Your point is…

Well, way back at the beginning Trishie gave her version of differences. Then I, um, suggested that Trishie’s description maybe could be better in certain respects. My, uh, suggestions involved pretty long post. Then somebody pointed out that I’m grammatically challenged, I use dopey word order sometimes. Then you said Trishie did a great job after all.

There. Now you have the entire futile story.

 

[LexKnight]

What I took LexKnight as saying was thus:
People grew complacent with the Novus Ordo, and thus bad liturgies and liturgical abuses cropped up. This however, could not, and cannot, be the the Novus Ordo was plagued with innovation and abuse from the get-go.

Innovation is hardly a plague in itself. It’s only when someone breaks the rules that it is a real problem - the rest is just your opinion.

Also, I would argue that no, the TLM in the period following the Council of Trent was not subject to such innovation and abuse. Why? Simple. A priest was under pain of sin for not saying Mass properly. In addition to that, the atmosphere of the Council of Trent would emphasize a strict adherence to the rubrics. Nothing of the sort was done after Vatican II.

Well there’s also something which I should highlight here - I’m not necessarily referring to liturgical abuses as such, but rather just bad/boring/barely sufficient liturgy. While the Mass isn’t supposed to be a song and dance routine, a Mass that fails to engage people fails to do it’s job well. It’s entirely possible for a priest to fulfil all the criteria for a Mass without breaking any rules whilst still inspiring the same kind of awe that comes with watching grass grow.

 

[Frosty]

Also, I would argue that no, the TLM in the period following the Council of Trent was not subject to such innovation and abuse. Why? Simple. A priest was under pain of sin for not saying Mass properly. In addition to that, the atmosphere of the Council of Trent would emphasize a strict adherence to the rubrics. Nothing of the sort was done after Vatican II.

.

And, like I said, I severely doubt that the TLM was prone to abuse and innovation in the Post-Deformation/Council of Trent time. The situation simply wouldn’t have allowed for it, and Trent was very specific. In addition to that, the rubrics for the TLM are/were very specific as to what is to be done.

There is the chance that there were abuses in the TLM. However I know of no sources and/or Vatican documents that would point to that. If you were a priest in the Trent-era I doubt you would risk your eternal salvation just so you could go and introduce changes into the Mass. Plus, if you were going to introduce changes in the Mass, you probably would have left the Church with the rest of the Deformers.

So, are you saying that immediately after Pope St. Pius V promulgated his Missal all Masses said everywhere in the Catholic Church where in perfect uniformity with his decree? I’m not talking about those places where the Ambrosian Rite or the Mozarabic Rite were allowed to be continued but the rest of the Roman Catholic world. If you really believe that then you are very naive.
The Mass of Pius V was the Mass of the city of Rome. As you know, there were many variations of the Mass said in other parts of Europe that where supressed. How do you think the priests in those areas learned the new rite right off the bat? Considering that communications were spotty at the best, it must have taken months for the news even to reach some areas and then even longer for the official sacramentaries to be made ready for the clergy.Then time for the clergy to learn the new rite and the rubrics. It wasn’t done in a day, a week or even a year. In those days, new directives from Rome were nailed to the doors of each church for them to take effect. The documents from Trent were not even allowed to be posted in France. How many of the clergy in that country do you think continued to celebrate the Gallician Rite and for how long until the situation got itself sorted out?
Apart form the length of time it took for the Mass of Pius V to become the norm everywhere, it was plagued by poor translations right from the start. In 1604, Pope Clement VIII issued Cum Sanctissimum decreeing that because of the errore and innovations that had crept into the printing of the Missals, a new translation was mandated.

catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/41/DocumentIndex/314

Again in 1643, Pope Urba VIII, in Si Quid Est ordered a revision of the Missal to conform with that of Pius V. In Si Quid Est he even stated that:

The rubrics which had been allowed to gradually degenerate from the old usage and rite, have been restored to their former pattern; those which did not seem to be easily intelligible to the readers, have been more clearly stated; and moreover, having compared the pertinent texts with the Vulgate edition of Holy Writ, the differences which had crept into the Missal have been emended according to this standard and norm

catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/DocumentContents/Index/2/SubIndex/41/DocumentIndex/403

In light of the fact that it took many, many years for the Mass of Pius V to actually conform to the norms [for one reason or another] it is not so startling that the Mass of Paul VI is not celebrated in some places as it was meant to be.

 

[Appleby]

It is definitely harder today as Latin is hardly taught in Catholic or public schools. I had no problem with Latin in grade or high school.

Even English isn’t taught well.

I concur. I had Latin in grades 7 and 8, both for liturgical reasons and because it was considered a good base to learning both English and the Romance languages. For today’s generation that thinks LOL is a word, Latin is probably far too difficult.

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

I recently changed parishes to an Oratory in which TLM and a sung English Mass are offered and in both cases silence is not only EMPHASIZED but CONSIDERED NORMAL both before and after Mass (not to mention DURING.) In my last parish, people came into the church blabbering in “outdoor voices” and continued to do so even after the bells had rung to usher all the latecomers inside. In the new parish there is no need for people to be told to turn off their Binkies. In the old one it was sometimes necessary for Father to stop the homily or the announcements to ask someone to shut the thing off. In that parish during times when silence would be expected, one frequently heard some primary school child endlessly repeating urgently, “Mom. Mom. Mom. Mom. Mom. Mom…” In this parish it is far more normal to see even quite young children genuflect and cross themselves before entering the pew, and then sit SILENTLY.

It is such a wonderful thing to have half an hour of silence before and after Mass to “be still and know that I am God” … not to mention for “Speak, for thy servant heareth.” There are so very few places in today’s world where silence is even possible. I think not only adults, but children, need to learn to listen in silence and I am so thankful to have found a parish where this is done.

 

[CradleCath]

So, are you saying that immediately after Pope St. Pius V promulgated his Missal all Masses said everywhere in the Catholic Church where in perfect uniformity with his decree? I’m not talking about those places where the Ambrosian Rite or the Mozarabic Rite were allowed to be continued but the rest of the Roman Catholic world. If you really believe that then you are very naive.

I disagree with you & would like to know what **MAJOR **changes you think Pope St. Pius V made to the Mass. The purpose of the council of Trent was to address the issues brought about by the Protestant "reformation, the education of the clergy & the Sacrament of Confession more than it addressed the Catholic Liturgy. What it addressed re the Liturgy was uniformity.