Why Novus ordo and not just vernacular

[OraLabora]

I had a conversation about this just this past week with our abbot. He is of the opposite opinion, the old liturgy needed reform. Our abbey, BTW, still uses Latin and Gregorian chant with the new rite using the 1974 Graduale Romanum. He is of the opinion that if the liturgical norms of the reform were actually respected, the demand for the old rite would be much lower.

He said in the old rite the priest was so concentrated on getting the minutiae right that it was difficult to actually pray the liturgy especially for younger priests, before the gestures became more automatic.

 

[CilladeRoma]

The Extraordinary Form is attracting huge numbers of adherents wherever it is being allowed

This may be the case in some places, but it is definitely not like that everywhere.
My diocese has had an approved EF since the early 1990’s. Attendance has stayed the same-roughly 150-200 per week
Mass is at 11:15am, in a safe, easily accessible church

Attendance at some other EF offerings around the diocese have an average attendance of about 100-150.

Good numbers, but a typical OF Mass has between 300-500 in attendance.

 

[ralfyman]

Here’s an interesting article which refers to various passages from Pope Benedict XVI’s works which refer to the OF:

Pope Benedict XVI Likes The Novus Ordo | Policraticus

Finally, there was another article (which I can’t find) which states that with the OF there are more selections taken from Scriptures throughout the cycles.

 

[CTBcin]

He said in the old rite the priest was so concentrated on getting the minutiae right that it was difficult to actually pray the liturgy especially for younger priests, before the gestures became more automatic.

Also, I know a number of priests from that era who gave up on the breviary out of frustration until the new breviary came out.

 

[TMC]

I am perfectly certain this is true. But it begs the question, why are the liturgical norms of the NO so little respected, and why has the TLM never had this problem?

Is this true? I have never heard that the Mass was always said properly before the reform of the liturgy. If you are saying that in the “good old days” there were no poor celebrants, why do you think that is the case?

 

[Crocus]

He said in the old rite the priest was so concentrated on getting the minutiae right that it was difficult to actually pray the liturgy especially for younger priests, before the gestures became more automatic.

An example perhaps, I remember my older brother saying the priest was required, at a certain point in the liturgy, to position his fingers in a precise configuration. I can appreciate the intent, but in the end there is beauty in simplicity, especially considering actions that might become rote in order to be done right.

 

[goout]

OraLabora:

if the liturgical norms of the reform were actually respected, the demand for the old rite would be much lower.

I am perfectly certain this is true. But it begs the question, why are the liturgical norms of the NO so little respected, and why has the TLM never had this problem?

Making assumptions about both sets of norms.

People do things against norms because human beings are prideful and like to take liberties. It’s part of fallen human nature unfortunately.
It’s not intrinsic to any particular order of Mass.

 

[OraLabora]

I am perfectly certain this is true. But it begs the question, why are the liturgical norms of the NO so little respected, and why has the TLM never had this problem?

Absolutely false. The old rite had its share of abuses from bad music, to speed-read or mumbled low Masses in 15 minutes flat. Many people here were witness to such abuses.

 

[TMC]

Please quote any example you are aware of, of a liturgical abuse which was allowed to persist, by a priest celebrating the traditional Latin Mass.

I can ask the same of you for the ordinary form of the Mass.

But to answer your question, I was pretty young when Mass was in Latin, but I certainly remember 15 min mumbled Masses where the priest got you “in and out.” My father liked one particular priest because we barely got the whole tribe settled in the pew (there were 10 of us) before we were up and out again. I am sure there were lots of other abuses back in the day. Certainly I have heard stories of them. Maybe they were different then the “abuses” of today, but they existed.

The idea that priests were more pure and dedicated in the old days, the people holier, the air sweeter, the sun brighter, is all just nostalgic nonsense. There were good and bad priests back then, just like now. Talking in Latin didn’t make them holier.

 

[TMC]

None of those are abuses.

So its NOT an abuse to not really say the words of the Mass, and instead just go as fast as possible so you don’t miss kickoff?

You still haven’t said what liturgical abuses are currently “allowed to persist.”

 

[Maximian]

Mumbling the Mass is annoying but definitely not an abuse.

Here’s an article from Catholic Answers. It’s a little old but certainly not out of date:

The Ten Most Common Liturgical Abuses | Catholic Answers | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[OraLabora]

None of those are abuses.

They most certainly are. Perhaps the “bad music” is more an issue of lack of skill. But a mumbled 15-minute Mass said as quickly as possible is a deliberate offense to both the liturgy, and to the Person the priest makes present on the altar. Just because something technically follows all the rules doesn’t mean that it doesn’t do offense to the spirit of the rule.

Here’s a specific case related to me by my 81 y.o. spiritual director when he was a seminarian in the '50s and served Mass. At a sung Mass, he would sing the Sanctus. One priest he served for would be finished the consecration before he had finished singing the Sanctus.

Moreover there’s nothing to suggest that if the EF were made normative again, the same people doing injury to the OF liturgy wouldn’t be doing injury to the EF liturgy.

Humans are humans. The EF simply has more rules to break.

An example perhaps, I remember my older brother saying the priest was required, at a certain point in the liturgy, to position his fingers in a precise configuration. I can appreciate the intent, but in the end there is beauty in simplicity, especially considering actions that might become rote in order to be done right.

That’s the specific example our abbot used to illustrate the need for simplification.

 

[TMC]

Seriously? So a priest saying “is acceptable” instead of “may be acceptable” is a horrible abuse, but saying mmmgagle, instead of any actual words is perfectly fine? And walking around during the Homily is a persistent abuse, but deliberately speeding through Mass in a way that prevents any actual worship, that’s fine?

It seems like what is being said is that everything in the past was better than the present- heck, even the abuses in the past were better than the abuses of today!

 

[TMC]

I don’t think you are giving a very probable example given that the Traditional Mass is said in Latin.

And of course it is a requirement of the TLM that the can be said inaudibly.

Sigh. So the examples of abuse in the past are all just fake. Made up. I guess that’s one way to win the argument.

 

[Dovekin]

why are the liturgical norms of the NO so little respected, and why has the TLM never had this problem?

Active participation is a hallmark of the mass post Vatican II. This has meant paying attention to the prayers and joining yourself to them. This means “abuses” are noticed more easily. Both the OF and EF should show evidence if this. But before the Council priests could do almost anything and it would not be noticed much less criticized. “Liturgical abuse” in the sense of people noticing mistakes is indeed a part of the reform.

I find that list of abuses funny. #5 is “Dictating posture” while #8 dictates a posture. So #8 isa liturgical abuse because it violates #5, and the behavior #8 condemns is permitted by #5. It is the problem with “liturgical abuse” when there are no controls on who can determine what is abuse.

While it was taken a little too far before the Council, a little humility is needed at the liturgy. I do not mean the obsequious never criticize Fr but an attitude of how can we do this better.

 

[TMC]

So far I haven’t been given any examples of liturgical abuse from before Vatican II.

Such as (in no particular order)

• A priest leaving the altar when it is prohibited to do so
• Known impenitents being given communion
• Fancy dress worn by the Priest during the Mass
• Dancing
• Texts being introduced which are not in the Missal

I am pretty sure all of those occurred in the pre-VII days, except maybe dancing. But, I have never actually seen a priest dancing on the altar. Seems like one of those rare, mythological happenings.

 

[ProVobis]

The TLM priests are required to take the Evelyn Woods for Latin course.

 

[Dovekin]

Known impenitents being given communion

The only reason this might be more prevalent now is that reception is more common. Still, I am sure there were plenty of impenitent nazis and fascists who received communion.

Fancy dress worn by the Priest during the Mass

This has been a problem forever. Vestments were regulated to decrease this behavior. I think it is safe to say some priests managed to get around those restrictions.

Dancing

Processions were much bigger before the Council. Much more opportunity for dance and dance like behaviors. Not that dance is necessarily an abuse…

Texts being introduced which are not in the Missal

The Golden Legend was a collection of lives of the saints designed to be read at mass. I doubt those were the only extra liturgical texts introduced at Mass.

 

[goout]

So far I haven’t been given any examples of liturgical abuse from before Vatican II.

Then maybe they just didn’t happen.

 

[goout]

I flagged your post.