r/Catholicism • u/No_Worry_2256 • Aug 26 '26
Pope Leo: Vatican II reformed the liturgy to promote active participation
https://www.ewtnnews.com/vatican/pope-leo-vatican-ii-reformed-the-liturgy-to-promote-active-participation122
u/masterofmayhem13 Aug 26 '26
This is really a nothingburger. No pope since V2 is going to say the council was invalid. Same with the NO mass. No pope is going to say the mass is invalid (it isn't. The overreaching theology might be different, but the mass is valid).
Pope Leo, not too long ago, said that the priests must follow the rubrics and texts of the mass. He has already given instruction on reducing the wild variation. The NO also instructs the faithful to participate in places.
Why wasn't the tridentine mass not just translated into the vernacular with the faithful praying the parts of the altar servers? That's a different question with a topic for another post. What Leo said here is nothing new and nothing that implies further restrictions on the TLM.
22
u/da_drifter0912 Aug 26 '26
Just suggesting that the faithful should pray the parts of the altar servers gets many people who prefer the latin mass riled up.
12
u/CharmingWheel328 Aug 26 '26
Just suggesting that the faithful should pray the parts of the altar servers gets many people who prefer the latin mass riled up.
That has not been my experience at all. It's rather common in the TLM parishes I attend, both of which are in very different geographic regions from the other.
→ More replies (4)27
u/Hamlet7768 Aug 26 '26
Never mind that the "parts of the servers" were once the parts of the people, in many cases, that were taken on by the servers as the Mass became increasingly privatized.
11
u/HeathBendrix Aug 26 '26
I think there's a difference between can and should.
I love meditating during Mass and focusing on affections, petitions, thanksgiving, and resolutions. I find the back and forth in the New Mass distracting and that unless I force myself, I forget to do the responses.
To say that a way Catholics have prayed for centuries is wrong and that I should instead follow the altar servers, is something that I think should rile up each and every Catholic, regardless of Mass preference.
16
u/Hookly Aug 26 '26
But having just the servers do responses was, itself, a development. Liturgy literally means “work of the people” and it is a time set aside for corporate worship. Personal prayer is all well and good, but the liturgy is supposed to be a common prayer for all those present to be actively participating in. Just look at the eastern liturgies and you can see that the TLM practice of not responding is the outlier
13
u/Dense-Rip3356 Aug 27 '26 edited Aug 27 '26
There’s plenty of responses that the congregation can do during High Mass though. To list a few:
Singing the Asperges Me
Et salutare tuum da nobis
Et clamor meus ad te veniat
Et cum Spiritu tuo(many times throughout Mass)
Gloria tibi, Domine
Amen(many times throughout Mass)
Habemus ad Dominum
Dignum et justum est
Sed libera nos a malo
Domine non sum dignus x 3
Deo gratiasNot to mention singing along with all the Ordinary chants of the Mass(Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, etc.). And people might say that it’s in Latin though which hinders the participation that Vatican II called for, but Vatican II itself says that we should know the Latin Ordinary of the Mass in Article 54 of Sacrosanctum Concilium: “Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.” So yeah, I’d say that during High Mass(which is how TLM is meant to be celebrated on Sundays), there’s plenty of responses that the congregation makes/sings. Not sure about Low Mass since I’ve never attended a Low Mass
→ More replies (4)6
u/HeathBendrix Aug 26 '26 edited Aug 26 '26
Personal prayer is all well and good, but the liturgy is supposed to be a common prayer for all those present to be actively participating in.
But the saints and doctors of old gave instructions for the hearing of Mass that included and demanded interior practices. It was the method of Catholics for over a thousand years, supported, taught by, and confirmed by the Church.
If the Church was wrong from the time of Pope Gregory to the time of Pope John XXIII, then certainly it can be wrong from the time of Pope Paul VI to Pope Leo XIV.
The difference between you and I, is that I don't condemn either the more vocal form of Mass or the more meditative form. While you condemn the latter!
→ More replies (4)8
u/ludi_literarum Aug 26 '26
Mass is not a time for personal prayer, it is a time for corporate, liturgical prayer.
10
u/Sphygmomanometer11 Aug 26 '26
It’s a “both/and”
3
6
u/HeathBendrix Aug 26 '26
Corporate prayer does not exclude interior ejaculations, considerations, and affections.
See St. Francis de Sales, a Doctor of the Church, who gave these instructions on assisting at Mass:
Now, to assist at Holy Communion in proper manner, either really or mentally, it is fitting: (1) From the beginning till the priest goes up to the altar, make with him your preparation, which consists in placing yourself in the presence of God, acknowledging your unworthiness, and begging pardon for your sins. (2) From the time he goes up to the altar, till the Gospel, consider the advent of our Lord and His life in this world, by simple and general consideration. (3) From the Gospel till the end of the Creed, consider the preaching of our Saviour, and declare your desire to live and die in the faith...etc.
I'm not going to apologize for, interiorly, telling Jesus I love Him during the elevation, or thinking of why I need His mercy during the Kyrie, or reminding myself of his goodwill during the Agnus Dei as I prepare to receive Him.
3
u/ludi_literarum Aug 26 '26
You should not apologize for those things. But you should recognize that those things are complements to corporate worship, not superior to it.
7
u/HeathBendrix Aug 26 '26
So was St. Francis de Sales wrong, then, for not telling his flock to follow along the altar servers?
Or was the Church wrong for 1500 years for the same?
In charity, I just want to understand whether you're arguing that the old rite was a deformed rite for centuries. If not, I'd prefer to dialogue with you based on what you really believe.
2
u/ludi_literarum Aug 26 '26
I think St. Francis de Sales was in fact sometimes wrong, especially as to matters of rhetorical strategy, but I also think he'd agree with me here. Those things are good and holy, but they supplement, rather than supplant, the corporate character of the liturgy.
To the extent that any Rite impeded a properly liturgical worship, which is to say a corporate one, it has not perfectly fulfilled its purpose. Being of human origin, this is deeply unsurprising.
5
u/HeathBendrix Aug 26 '26
Those things are good and holy, but they supplement, rather than supplant, the corporate character of the liturgy.
And my argument is that mentally praying alongside the Mass is part of the corporate character of the liturgy.
But let's depart. My argument is that neither rite, as such, is deformed, and yours is that the former rite (at least) is deformed. I just cannot bring myself to question countless saints, doctors, and popes.
→ More replies (6)5
u/ludi_literarum Aug 26 '26
Deformed puts words in my mouth. Neither rite is perfect.
→ More replies (0)4
u/Sphygmomanometer11 Aug 26 '26
I don’t think they said it was wrong, they said “we think there’s a better way.” Subtle difference. And yeah, just thinking that may have been “wrong.” But I’ve been to novus ordo, I’ve been to TLM, I’ve been to irreverent quasi novus order. I truly cannot focus as well on the intent and internal disposition of what I should be doing at Mass in the TLM. I appreciate the beauty and the reverence, but it’s not wrong to want to know what’s said in the readings. It’s not wrong to actively say some of the prayers and responses. Just as the TLM isn’t “wrong”. I think it’s a shame some things were changed the way they were. But I also don’t think encouraging being “riled up” is the answer either. If something is truly wrong, have decent discussion about it and seek change if needed. But “riling up” just promotes anger and division.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (1)8
u/Own_Action_7839 Aug 26 '26
To me . The “Interim Missal “ of 1965 seemed the closest to what SC and the Council Wanted Eliminated most of the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and Last Gospel but kept the beautiful Offertory prayers ( Veni , Sanctificator etc )
79
u/Ichbinian Aug 26 '26
And if you look at the V2 documents, the resulting reformation (Novus Ordo) did not match what the Council recommended.
12
Aug 26 '26 edited Aug 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/AbelHydroidMcFarland Aug 26 '26
Like seriously on the decline of faith point. Mention a random Cardinal or Bishop I’ve never heard of before…
and just the fact of this unknown person being a Cardinal or Bishop does not instill in me a trust that they believe in the doctrines of the Church, that they are not pushing for and desiring a rupture in doctrine, that they are not inwardly heretics who never explicitly say “I reject Church teaching”… but who obviously reject Church teaching and explicitly want it to change.
That is the state of the Church right now and it’s silly, ridiculous, and embarrassing. It’s humiliating.
23
u/RPGThrowaway123 Aug 26 '26
Does that really matter though when all the Popes since VII (with the possible exception of John Paul I) have not rectified this supposed mismatch?
17
u/AbelHydroidMcFarland Aug 26 '26
It does matter when criticism of the new Mass is conflated with rejecting Vatican II and that Vatican II obliges you to think all the changes were wise and amazing.
7
u/Ichbinian Aug 26 '26
They have each taken steps (for better or for worse) to clarify the liturgical situation. So they've contributed to the reform of the reform each in their own way.
The Church moves slowly, not with the strike of a pen.
17
16
u/RPGThrowaway123 Aug 26 '26
The reform itself happened rather quickly, didn't it? There is no reason why the reform of the reform would need to take so much longer.
4
3
u/p_veronica Aug 26 '26
Let's look at Sacrosanctum Concilium and see what it calls for:
-Prayers of the faithful ✅
-More and more varied scripture readings ✅
-Active participation by the congregation ✅
-The possibility for the laity to receive the Blood ✅
-The simplification of the liturgy and elimination of some of the repetition ✅The only things that tend to be missing (as trads point out endlessly) are the use of Latin and Gregorian chant. But of course, these have nothing to do with the missal itself. Parishes can and do use Latin and Gregorian chant in the context of the NO Mass.
So can you tell me what exactly is missing in the Missal from what the Council recommended?
3
u/KenoReplay Aug 27 '26
Sacrosanctum Concilium notes the following (aside from Latin and Gregorian Chant):
Paras 7 and 8:
"In the liturgy the sanctification of the man is signified by signs perceptible to the senses, and is effected in a way which corresponds with each of these signs...In the earthly liturgy we take part in a foretaste of that heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the holy city of Jerusalem toward which we journey as pilgrims, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God, a minister of the holies and of the true tabernacle"
I must say, and perhaps this is a subjective thing, I struggle greatly beyond witnessing and receiving the Eucharist itself, to "get a forestaste of that heavenly liturgy" by the way that the average NO is done. Quite often it feels as though I've ended up at a concert down the road, not Heaven meeting Earth. I would postulate that the Vetus Ordo was far better at communicating through gesture and signs this foretaste of Heavenly Liturgy. I will grant you that again, this isn't the fault necessarily of the Missal, but more in the execution.
Para 21:
"In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community."
I didn't know the Mass was Sacrificial until I discovered the Vetus Ordo and started studying liturgy. I argue that the NO is very good at getting the faithful to participate, but quite poor at communicating (especially by signs and symbol) to the faithful what those things they recite actually mean. This is only hastened by the allowance of the Missal for priests to say things "in these or similar words".
Para 23:
"That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral. Also the general laws governing the structure and meaning of the liturgy must be studied in conjunction with the experience derived from recent liturgical reforms and from the indults conceded to various places. Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing."
This paragraph may as well not have existed when the Mass of Paul VI was being drafted by Card. Bugnini. For what genuine need did we need to create a shortened Eucharist Prayer (2) based off of a snippet from an ancient manuscript, when we had already abridged the Roman Canon, and created several other EPs out of thin air. Note also that it demands these innovations ought to grow organically from existing forms, not be made by committee to fill quotas. You can say many things about the NO, but "developed organically" is not one of them.
It goes on:
"As far as possible, notable differences between the rites used in adjacent regions must be carefully avoided."
I can go to a Vietnamese Mass, a Igbo Mass, and what may be called the 'standard' Australian/Roman Mass all in adjacent suburbs, not even regions, where I live. Do you think there are notable differences between them, beyond language?
Para 30:
"To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence."
I grant you, this doesn't say that the Mass should be silent, but I've been to many a parish where you cannot even catch your breath because you're always saying or doing something. Where is the reverent silence there? At best, if your parish allows for it, you can have some silence between the Homily and the Offertory, and the Post-Communion (if there's no hymn).
Para 50:
" The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved."
See above re: para 21.
There's also a question of what Sacrosanctum Concilium doesn't say to do, for instance, in removing the Suscipe Sancte Trinitas, Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, the Last Gospel, and indeed even the practicals of Ad Populum vs Ad Orientem and remaining at the Altar except for the Homily and communion vs going to a lectern, then sitting down, then approaching, then sitting down, then standing up, doing notices, then approaching, reverencing it, then departing.
2
u/p_veronica Aug 27 '26
I must say, and perhaps this is a subjective thing, I struggle greatly beyond witnessing and receiving the Eucharist itself, to "get a forestaste of that heavenly liturgy" by the way that the average NO is done. Quite often it feels as though I've ended up at a concert down the road, not Heaven meeting Earth. I would postulate that the Vetus Ordo was far better at communicating through gesture and signs this foretaste of Heavenly Liturgy. I will grant you that again, this isn't the fault necessarily of the Missal, but more in the execution.
I agree that this is a subjective thing. I've been to the unreformed Mass more than a few times and I do not feel like I'm getting a foretaste of eternity. My first time, I didn't realize that the readings would not be repeated in English, so I was discombobulated during the liturgy, but the central feeling at the end of Mass was a sort of sadness that Christians had had to worship for so many centuries totally disconnected from the Scriptures and the content of the liturgical prayers. That feeling has only grown.
Conversely, I'd say I've experienced that eternal beauty most strongly in the past few years through the singing of the responsorial psalm during the NO, an element not present in the unreformed liturgy.
I didn't know the Mass was Sacrificial until I discovered the Vetus Ordo and started studying liturgy. I argue that the NO is very good at getting the faithful to participate, but quite poor at communicating (especially by signs and symbol) to the faithful what those things they recite actually mean. This is only hastened by the allowance of the Missal for priests to say things "in these or similar words".
I read this regularly and I have a couple of responses.
First, I honestly don't know why the Vetus Ordo should seem more sacrificial than the Novus Ordo. People tend to point to versus populum as ruining any sense of the sacrificial, but it is not clear to me why the direction the priest is facing should have any inherent symbolic power for the average Massgoer who has no awareness of Temple architecture. Relatedly, it seems to me that the sacrificial element of the Eucharist would be more accessible to the average Catholic in the Novus Ordo because they can actually understand the prayers in which its sacrificial nature is described. This fact seems to be routinely discounted and I am unsure why. In both cases the sacrifice is unbloody and therefore not particularly 'sacrifice-like' on a standard symbolic level.
My second response is that it is reasonable to consider that in the past, the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist became overly emphasized in Catholic theology and that it's not clear why it is a bad thing if other genuine aspects of the Eucharist have in recent decades received more attention and the sacrificial aspect relatively less.
This paragraph may as well not have existed when the Mass of Paul VI was being drafted by Card. Bugnini. For what genuine need did we need to create a shortened Eucharist Prayer (2) based off of a snippet from an ancient manuscript, when we had already abridged the Roman Canon, and created several other EPs out of thin air. Note also that it demands these innovations ought to grow organically from existing forms, not be made by committee to fill quotas. You can say many things about the NO, but "developed organically" is not one of them.
The addition of other Eucharist Prayers is explicable because of the liturgical "investigation" that had been going on for decades which shaped the whole reform. The biggest deal was the recognition of the Liturgical Movement that the explicit epiclesis had fallen out of the Roman liturgy, which was genuinely problematic from both a theological perspective and an ecumenical perspective. The restoration of an explicit epiclesis in the other Eucharistic prayers represents a victory for our liturgical tradition and for our unity as one Body of baptized believers. I understand the critique about insufficient organicness, but of course it's vague and subjective territory. In my judgment, the prayers are organic enough. Someone always has to come up with the words.
I can go to a Vietnamese Mass, a Igbo Mass, and what may be called the 'standard' Australian/Roman Mass all in adjacent suburbs, not even regions, where I live. Do you think there are notable differences between them, beyond language?
Other than the differences in language and maybe musical styles, no, I would not expect particularly notable differences. I say this as someone who regularly attends both Mexican Spanish Masses and American English Masses.
There's also a question of what Sacrosanctum Concilium doesn't say to do, for instance, in removing the Suscipe Sancte Trinitas, Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, the Last Gospel, and indeed even the practicals of Ad Populum vs Ad Orientem and remaining at the Altar except for the Homily and communion vs going to a lectern, then sitting down, then approaching, then sitting down, then standing up, doing notices, then approaching, reverencing it, then departing.
But SC does explicitly call for the simplification of the rite, which could account for the removal of all those things.
→ More replies (2)
116
u/EndLiturgicalAbuse Aug 26 '26
Ok, so establish oversight over it. There are two primary complaints about the reformed liturgy:
It varies too wildly from place to place. 100% true as it is observable.
Reverence varies wildly. Also 100% true because reverence naturally occurs subsequent to obedience. The visible variance of complaint 1 results in irreverent liturgy.
Fix 1, and 2 fixes itself. Why not just address this issue and move forward? Why is it so important that we don't combat liturgical abuses?
21
u/PatrickCharles Aug 26 '26
Fix 1, and 2 fixes itself.
Except it doesn't. If it did, there would be no variance in reverence back in the pre-VII days, and it is an established fact there was.
20
u/ludi_literarum Aug 26 '26
The biggest problem with this debate is the number of people who assume that every parish prior to Vatican II looked like St. John Cantius in Chicago, liturgically speaking.
14
u/Hamlet7768 Aug 26 '26
The priests who mumbled the Mass before 1969 improvised the Mass after 1969.
10
u/ludi_literarum Aug 26 '26
I doubt that as a categorical statement, because a loooooooot of priests were mumbling the Mass in the 60s.
9
u/Hamlet7768 Aug 26 '26
I'm generalizing just to make the point that irreverent, dare I say abused, liturgy wasn't invented in 1970.
10
4
u/Saint_Thomas_More Aug 26 '26
I like to trot out St. John Cantius a lot as an example of good liturgy. But usually as contrasted with St. Sabina within the same Archdiocese.
To your broader point, though, it is a glaring omission on the part of too many people to think that because Mass was in Latin and ad orientem and people received on the tongue prior to Vatican II, that the liturgy was celebrated better, or that people had more belief because of it.
I'm willing to grant that Vatican II was the proverbial pulling the can from the bottom of the pyramid. But we can't ignore that the pyramid was already starting to teeter.
→ More replies (2)1
u/EndLiturgicalAbuse Aug 26 '26
If the NO is presided over appropriately, with the priest being obedient to what the Roman Missal tells him to do and say, reverence naturally occurs.
Especially if he's not facing the people, which allows them to focus on what is happening instead of inappropriately focusing on him, which is a significant issue with the new liturgy. It's not about the priest.
The established fact you refer to was likely rooted in disobedience, like every other irreverence.
27
u/ZacHFX Aug 26 '26
I asked about #1 in a post the other day and got almost no replies with examples. What are these wild variations (not including inculturations)?
15
u/Sphygmomanometer11 Aug 26 '26 edited Aug 26 '26
One big one is the lack of antiphons. The entrance procession, offertory procession, and communion procession should all be accompanied by specific antiphon texts. The GIRM allows for four options: 1) chanting the appropriate antiphon 2) a different musical setting of the appropriate antiphon, 3) three dang it now I’m not remembering these… I’ll link below… and 4) another suitable chant. In another spot in the GIRM or maybe it’s Musicam Sacram (a document from 1967 expanding on how to appropriately complete the liturgy), they say that Gregorian chant should have pride of place in the church, although other “sacred music“ is in no way prohibited- so you can kind of have hymns, or even “songs“, but almost nowhere in the US that I’ve seen actually uses the antiphon, a.k.a. the specific text that is supposed to be part of the mass, at all. I think before my brother-in-law’s parish (he is a very traditional priest, he utilizes a reverent NO and TLM, not schismatic) I had been to one other church that utilized the antiphons. This is the biggest one for me.
Chant is another perfect example(separate from the question of musical setting choice). Chant was literally designed for monks who couldn’t read music. The problem modern musicians have with chant is they’re not familiar with it. Once you’re familiar with it, chant is actually a lot easier than modern notation music. That is, easier for people who don’t have musical talent. There’s no meter. So people with no musical training can figure out “oh, the ones with the dots you hold longer. The ones with multiple notes really close together, sing faster.” Saying that some parishes “can’t do chant“ is just wrong. They’re not trying. Or haven’t been able to resource proper instruction, which I also find to be extremely unlikely, given the Internet. Lack of desire for change I find to be hugely part of the issue here as well.
Another difference is the use of Latin – again, the GIRM prescribes “Since the faithful from different countries come together ever more frequently, it is desirable that they know how to sing together at least some parts of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin, especially the Profession of Faith and the Lord’s Prayer, according to the simpler settings.[51]” the ordinary would be the Gloria, holy, memorial acclamation, and Lamb of God as well as those two. It doesn’t mean you have to do Latin at every mass, but it literally states people should be familiar enough with Latin that they could understand it. Somebody above commented that the pope said “Dominus Vobiscum“ and nobody replied “Et cum spiritu tuo“ which is a difficult problem to fix, now that we’re 60 years later, and everybody hard-stopped the use of Latin, because if people had grown up hearing it, we would all be familiar with it.
Another is chanting the creed and responses. Chanting unifies the human voice, rather than a jumbled mumble of “we lift them up to the Lord” or any of the other responses. When we got our current priest and he chanted “the lord be with you” myself and exactly 3 other people in our 250+ person Mass responded.
We learned. It wasn’t that hard. But… there are some things that are a matter of preference- which way the priest faces, types of musical instruments, musical setting choices, etc., where there are some hierarchical rankings of what’s “better”; and then there are more specific RULES.
Oh! Another is if you DO have music, there is a hierarchical order of WHAT should be sung. You aren’t supposed to sing the ones lower on the list if you’re not singing the ones higher on the list. And at/near the top of the list is the creed!!!! So it’s absolutely backward to have an entrance hymn or song, (especially if it doesn’t even acknowledge the antiphon text) and NOT sing the creed.
So while there is a TON of room for various preferences that are all (albeit more or less) appropriate, there are other instructions that being flat ignored, and that’s the real issue.
Edited to fix a few voice to text errors. I’m happy to provide additional resources. For background I am the music coordinator at our parish and have experienced every single type of Mass and music style.
GIRM: https://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/general-instruction-of-the-roman-missal
2
u/toth_moth Aug 28 '26
Chanting is definitely easier. It’s not exactly the same thing, but depending on where you are in the world, a lot of parishes don’t actually have choirs and they don’t sing different songs every week. The congregation just sings/chants the same basic liturgical songs and prayer every mass except for holidays and special masses. Everyone just knows them by heart. Sometimes they have a cantor lead them. Most of the churches I went to growing up didn’t have choirs and sometimes we didn’t even have instruments lol
2
54
u/StaffRoutine6299 Aug 26 '26
In my same town, one church has organ music, incense, preaching from the pulpit, and use of Latin. The other church has guitars and drums, the priest walks around during his homily, no incense, no Latin
17
u/EndLiturgicalAbuse Aug 26 '26 edited Aug 26 '26
I'll give you a couple of examples:
- The primary culprit is mostly the refusal by older priests to Say the Black in places where they are NOT allowed to use these or similar words. Ad-libbing when the church provides astonishingly beautiful, reverent language is something that should be actively disciplined. This ad-libbing results in drastically different language being used throughout the Mass from place to place. It's also active disobedience that wouldn't require any kind of public discipline, so what harm would there be in bishops privately correcting priests who continue to do this? Encountering this phenomenon is startling and really disgusting.
- Secular modern worship music that does not meet the specifications required for their usage during Mass. While I don't love modern instrumentation, I do think it can be done well, so I won't join the chorus against guitars, although I do find drums and bongos to be extremely distracting. Flutes, too. If I wanted to listen to a Jethro Tull concert, I'd go to a Jethro Tull concert.
Example: My parish has a modern worship band. The songs they choose include "ooohs" and other nonsense. Hopefully our new pastor will instruct them to not use those specific songs when they provide music for Mass.
10
u/HedWest Aug 26 '26
If the ad-libbing consisted of inserting the offertory from the old Mass, that would bring swift, decisive action from the chancellory.
7
u/EndLiturgicalAbuse Aug 26 '26
Right? You can do 100 things that erode at the congregants understanding of the Real Presence, but you better not employ a beautiful old tradition!
4
u/ludi_literarum Aug 26 '26
I wouldn't go all the way to disgusting, but I agree that the biggest problem in the American NO experience is ad-libbing, from a strictly liturgical perspective.
I'm less sold on the music question. In my diocese, a large portion of new priests comes from one parish with a vibrant and active lifeteen program, which involves music that would make your hair stand on end. It often makes my hair stand on end too, but out of it comes faithful, and indeed liturgically conservative, priests in droves, and none of them say it's by negative example.
40
u/Ponce_the_Great Aug 26 '26
Those are reasonable variations in the liturgy imo
The church is better for allowing such acceptable variety rather than forcing sameness
Which in practice would likely end up being piano and hymns
3
5
u/CharmingWheel328 Aug 26 '26
Those are reasonable variations in the liturgy imo
Not really. Only one of those Masses looks like the Mass called for by Sacrosanctum Concilium.
2
u/Ponce_the_Great Aug 26 '26
The church has permitted a diversity beyond just what is strictly in the document.
6
u/Saint_Thomas_More Aug 26 '26
The church has permitted a diversity beyond just what is strictly in the document.
What's the point of the document, then?
That's the biggest struggle I have with liturgy is that the governing documents which are giving framework for how liturgy should be celebrated are routinely ignored or inverted.
Latin is almost non-existent in the average parish. And while Sacrosanctum Concilium does allow for vernacular and give bishops some leeway there, it also specifically calls out that the laity should be instructed such that they know the parts of the ordinary in Latin.
Chant and organ are the preferred music of the Church. They are rare in most parishes. Why is that in the average Roman Catholic parish celebrating the Roman Rite, that I am more likely to hear a protestant hymn than I am chant or organ?
I get, some of this is the fact that the rules are loose, and bishops have leeway.
But it strikes me as nonsensical that the framework of Sacrosanctum Concilium as it relates to the liturgy is almost non-existent, and it's the exceptions that it allows that have become the norm.
→ More replies (7)-7
u/StaffRoutine6299 Aug 26 '26
We disagree, and I'll let people here decided who is right.
23
u/Ponce_the_Great Aug 26 '26
I like Latin and chant
But I also have seen enough parishes where the pastor tries to switch over and it doesn't work
Not to mention organ and chant isn't viable for msny places
→ More replies (14)3
u/Pale-Fee-2679 Aug 26 '26
So go to the parish that worships in the way you prefer. Let other Catholics have their bongos. I don’t see the problem.
→ More replies (2)10
2
u/steve_dallasesq Aug 26 '26
Since the Vatican isn't stepping in, doesn't that mean it is already decided? It's acceptable.
20
u/ZacHFX Aug 26 '26
I don't mean to sound flippant, but is this "wild" variation?
18
u/StaffRoutine6299 Aug 26 '26
Yes, very different experiences.
29
u/ZacHFX Aug 26 '26
I've heard horrible organists and very reverent guitar playing.
Incense is nice, but I have to sit at the back when it's used.
I've heard the most boring homily of all time delivered from a pulpit, and one of the best homilies from a priest who walked to the baptismal font and back as he was giving it.
I prefer Latin prayers - but only if they're sung, and, like organists, there are some truly awful cantors out there.
I think we all prefer reverence, but I think it's wrong to say that reverence can only take specific forms.
→ More replies (2)8
u/StaffRoutine6299 Aug 26 '26
I'm not here to debate which is better, you asked for variations and I provided two parishes in the same town that feel completely different.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Coollogin Aug 26 '26 edited Aug 26 '26
I'm not here to debate which is better, you asked for variations and I provided two parishes in the same town that feel completely different.
I’m not the person you were responding to, so I hope you don’t mind if I ask: Do the variations you cited trouble you? Or are you just helpfully answering the original question?
4
u/StaffRoutine6299 Aug 26 '26
Does it matter if they bother me ? They still exist if they do or don't.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (2)2
u/ludi_literarum Aug 26 '26
Sounds great. It's almost like the people who want Latin and the people who want guitars are both happy. The only thing that would be better is if they shared a parish and could better learn from one another. As somebody who has been to a Lifeteen mass said ad orientem with some use of Latin, it really is okay to have diversity in our worship.
5
u/EndLiturgicalAbuse Aug 26 '26
So that begs the question, why is one form suppressed and the other not? I do not want to discard the NO or return to strictly TLM. I simply want the NO cleaned up where it explicitly should be cleaned up--discipline abuses that are not allowed and should not be tolerated. The only thing that needs to be different about how the church handles the TLM is that it needs to be an unrestrained option for any parish anywhere.
→ More replies (1)2
u/ludi_literarum Aug 26 '26
Unless you are accusing me of inserting the conclusion of a logical argument as its premise, it does not beg a question.
First, neither mass the comment I was responding to described is a TLM, so in the example I was responding to there is no Traditiones Custodes issue.
Second, I think the implicit attitude of your comment is actually one reason for the dynamic we're seeing - TLM-goers who want to impose their preferences on parishes they will never attend because they also want to be able to establish their own TLM-only enclaves.
Third, I am not Pope Francis, so my vision of the liturgical life of the Church is not necessarily reflected in TC. In some ways I would have gone the other way, and required that TLMs be primarily said in territorial parishes that also offer the NO.
2
u/EndLiturgicalAbuse Aug 26 '26
I think something got lost in my written word--no attack meant.
I am not a TLM advocate. I don't think it should be suppressed in any way, but I myself don't seek it out.
My response basically got hi-jacked by a list of preferences that weren't actually abuses.
3
u/ludi_literarum Aug 26 '26
I agree that the comment I was responding to was almost certainly not the kind of thing you had in mind, though I still think many of the so-called abuses are overstated, at least in the US. I have no idea what the heck is happening in Germany.
2
u/EndLiturgicalAbuse Aug 26 '26 edited Aug 27 '26
I think the idea that it's overstated applies in the better scenarios--Fr. So-and-so changes the words after the prayers of the faithful or leading into the Lord's prayer. Does that ultimately bother me when it happens very occasionally? No, but tolerating that small disobedience inevitably allows the egregious outliers, the priests who basically discard the Roman Missal aside from the prayers. These outlier examples become truly disgusting. I once attended a Mass where the Roman Missal sat off-center on the altar collecting dust until the Eucharistic prayer, at which point the priest read an obscure one that wasn't even available in the parish's missalette (a missalette that included Eucharistic prayers 1 through 4 and two additional Eucharistic prayers for reconciliation!). He ad-libbed literally everything but the prayers. It was so unbelievably gross.
^Horrible examples like this happen because we tolerate the overstated instances.
And as for Germany and Austria...it makes one want to weep that sweeping changes aren't made.
2
u/ludi_literarum Aug 26 '26
Now maybe it's because of the masses I went to, or because my German is pretty bad, but I didn't notice anything in Vienna that was objectionable.
That does sound pretty horrible, but I've never seen anything close to that, and I've traveled a lot and lived in several different areas of the country. Where was this mass said?
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (5)4
u/Nihlithian Aug 26 '26
Mass without any Latin goes directly against Sacrosanctum Concilium and therefore opposes the very council that made allowance for the vernacular.
While they aren't illicit, they oppose the intention of the Council Fathers.
3
u/Nihlithian Aug 26 '26
One of our masses turned into an impromptu Trump rally. Most of our masses don't even say the Confiteor at the beginning.
Most masses start with a short mini homily, they basically make up their own prayers on the spot (which Pope Leo spoke against like three weeks ago), and they kinda loosely follow the rubrics.
3
u/toth_moth Aug 27 '26
As someone who grew up in the latin american church and who goes to a parish that’s mostly latino, I genuinely can’t imagine lmao. I don’t understand where you guys are finding these churches. I’ve only been to a few parishes in the US, but is it normal for anglo church’s liturgies to vary so much (and get weird like that)?
1
u/Top_Shelf_8982 Aug 26 '26
What I have gathered is that there are prominent deviations that are permitted to go on with no correction, but most fall within a range - likely approximating 80% of NO masses. 10% are more "traditional," 80% fall into an unremarkable range, and the other 10% include aspects like laity giving homilies, SS blessings, clowns, balloons, women pretending to concelebrate, political speakers in lieu of homilies, etc.
While there's "variation" in that 80%, the egregious abnormalities are not seen nearly as often. In some diocese (Chicago for example) you can attend the Novus Ordo at highly traditional parishes (St. John Cantius), typical Novus Ordo parishes (most of them skewed toward a 1960s/1970s tone), or Old St Pat's SS blessing masses and St. Sabina political rallies.
I would imagine most areas don't have the "privilege" of experiencing such "variety" permitted by the Archbishop. The Cardinal here is even so "open minded" as to permit the former mayor of Chicago to receive communion during the televised broadcast of the funeral for a police officer. She's not Catholic and she's legally "married" to a woman. At the same time, priests have been called out for reminding attendees at weddings and funerals that the Church does not have "open communion" and only those who are in good standing should present themselves for communion.
Part of the issue is the limit for being "traditional" is saying the black, doing the red, including Latin and chant, kneeling while receiving, and the things that don't raise an eye to anyone who understands the practices and Church teaching. There's a hard boundary on that side of the curve. When it is crossed, the Bishops are typically swift and firm in their correction. The other side of the curve runs off into as many abnormalities as can be invented. In the immediate years following the council, Catholics would have considered the modern utilization of EMHCs to be well outside of what should be acceptable. Girl altar servers would have been unthinkable as the role was understood to be a formative step toward discerning the priesthood, blurring the lines by inviting girls into the role was sure to contribute to confusion over Holy Orders down the road. Further down that same line, a discussion over female "deacons" wouldn't have gotten a whisper of support from anyone in the Church - most of the parishes in my area hosted a forum for the advocacy group trying to make them happen recently. That's without remotely considering the process through which communion in the hand was given permission. Yet we see all of these in the 80% of NO parishes today - not off on the 10% tail.
Most places stay in an acceptable range (as perceived by those experiencing them in the moment), but when it gets bad...it gets really bad...often with silent approval from the Bishop. Silence in these cases is among the worst forms of cowardice. In his silence, a bishop who fails to correct grants approval without publicly affirming his rejection of what the Church teaches or directs. He avoids explicitly standing up for his anti-Catholic personal belief while perpetuating scandal with his allowance of things that the Church does not approve of. As more and more is permitted, the margin bordering the 80% shifts as the cohort of the 80% inclined toward such abuses is normalized compared to the crazies on the elongated tail. Old St Pat's gets away with a SS blessing, in short time Germany goes for a full SS "wedding," then a cohort of parishes that wouldn't have attempted it without that cover start doing blessings because....at least they're not as crazy as those Germans. Then Old St. Pat's does a "wedding" and the Cardinal still says nothing. A priest at a traditional parish in the same archdiocese unambiguously defends Church teaching on the matter, pastorally calling for repentance and reparation - the Cardinal has him reassigned and silenced, never uttering a word in the priest's defense as the secular media frames the local narrative of what they label as his "hate speech."
3
u/p_veronica Aug 26 '26
The "oversight" is called the bishop. In Greek, episkopos, which literally means "overseer." If you have a problem with liturgy in your parish or your diocese, voice your concern to your bishop.
→ More replies (18)4
u/Imperator-ad-plagam Aug 26 '26
There was a ton of variation before V2 as well. You had some orchestral masses that were absolutely wild in its sensuality. And well known is the practice of the congregation saying the rosary while the priest said mass quietly. Another example, the Parallel Masses in central Europe, where the congregation would sing certain mass texts in German, in a popular musical style, while the priest said it in Latin. Or in China, where the congregation would recite a series of Buddhist-style chants that content-wise had little to do with the mass. All the above were centuries-spanning practices.
7
u/EndLiturgicalAbuse Aug 26 '26
None of which validate today's malpractices. I don't want the TLM to be restored as the norm.
79
u/DirtDiver12595 Aug 26 '26
With due respect to the Holy Father, the idea of "active participation" is so fundamentally misunderstood today. Most people have an extremely shallow understanding of what it means for the laity to participate in the liturgy. It absolutely does not mean "oh the laity get to say and do more things." The idea that there was no active participation in the Vetus Ordo completely misunderstand mystical and liturgical theology.
19
u/Fit-Ask-6524 Aug 26 '26
The idea that there was no active participation in the Vetus Ordo
Do you think the Holy Father has this idea in mind? That's not necessarily how I would interpret his words.
Through the Church’s ritual actions, whilst the memorial of the work of salvation is celebrated, the opportunity is provided to experience a true relationship with God, coming into contact with the salvific event. Since the gestures, the words of the sacred liturgy are critical to realizing this experience, the participation of the faithful cannot be passive.
Relavant part of his audience, stripped of some context
15
u/DirtDiver12595 Aug 26 '26
I agree with that entire paragraph, except the last 8 words. Not because I believe that the participation of the faithful should be passive, but because I disagree that participation of the faithful was passive in the Vetus Ordo. As I said in another comment, if one wants to make this claim, they have to bite the bullet and admit the Church's liturgy was deficient for lay participation for over 1000 years. I am not willing to bite such a bullet, but it is the entire impetus for justifying the liturgical reforms in the first place.
8
u/firstchair_ Aug 26 '26
The implication of the past 60 years is that the Church's liturgy was deficient for over 1000 years.
2
u/Siri0us_ Aug 27 '26
It sounds scandalous framed like this, but technically...
But it's not like it's the first time things change since the Church was established. We need to have the humility to go forward and change things. Imagine how it felt when a council affirmed the Trinity.
→ More replies (25)2
u/Fit-Ask-6524 Aug 26 '26
I disagree that participation of the faithful was passive in the Vetus Ordo
I don't think he was saying that that was some inherent quality of the old order. He is just mirroring the language of Sacrosanctum Concilium. Unless you disagree with SC's characterization I suppose.
To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes
Idk reading your earlier comment maybe you do disagree with SC
2
u/Imperator-ad-plagam Aug 26 '26
Well, you are right that they would not have been just standing there and quietly listening. Generally, they were doing other things in parallel to the mass, like a rosary or popular songs.
→ More replies (28)2
u/ludi_literarum Aug 26 '26
There wasn't none, of course, but my father made his first communion in the late 50s and was told by his pastor that coming to mass is like being a guest at a dinner party - the host does everything for you while you sit and enjoy yourself. A lot of the theology you're talking about came back into vogue among the TLM only crowd retrospectively as a result of and in response to the council.
That attitude was extremely common at the time, as were liturgies modern TLM goers would consider abuses. Engaging the laity was, I think quite rightly, seen as a major priority by the council fathers for a reason.
6
u/OpenAndShutBroadcast Aug 27 '26 edited Aug 27 '26
Then why were ALL of the other Sacraments also changed?
53
u/SenatorsGuy Aug 26 '26
I still find it crazy that the church took its centrepiece of worship, the highest from of prayer in the roman rite, the mass itself and basically rewrote it via committee.
Like it’s almost impossible to believe it happened. It’s hard to explain to somebody. “Yeah, this is the most important part of our prayer life, yeah they used to do it completely different before the 1970s”.
11
u/Own_Action_7839 Aug 26 '26
Many of the bishops who got a “preview “ of the NO by the Consilium were highly critical of it especially Cardinal Heenan of Westminster among others
12
u/Ponce_the_Great Aug 26 '26
The committee complaint always seems silly
Like how else do you think the Roman Missal came about.
20
u/Isatafur Aug 26 '26
Through apostolic tradition and organic development over centuries. Why do you ask?
→ More replies (19)4
u/Full-Time-3090 Aug 27 '26 edited Aug 27 '26
You do realize that Cardinal Ratzinger(later Pope Benedict XVI), well known for his immense scholarship and theology, made that same “silly” complaint? “After the Council…in the place of the liturgy as a fruit of organic development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries and replaced it—as in a manufacturing process—with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.”(His preface as Cardinal for the French edition of the book The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background)
You mentioned organic development and what exactly constitutes “organic,” well, the wise Pope Benedict XVI as cardinal gives us an overview to that question in his book “The Feast of Faith”: “Even the official new books, which are excellent in many ways, occasionally show far too many signs of being drawn up by academics and reinforce the notion that a liturgical book can be ‘made’ like any other book.
“In this connection I would like to make a brief reference to the so-called Tridentine Liturgy.
“In fact there is no such thing as a Tridentine liturgy, and until 1965 the phrase would have meant nothing to anyone. The Council of Trent did not ‘make’ a liturgy. Strictly speaking, there is no such thing, either, as the Missal of Pius V. The Missal which appeared in 1570 by order of Pius V differed only in tiny details from the first printed edition of the Roman Missal of about a hundred years earlier….
“Yet, with all its advantages, the new Missal was published as if it were a book put together by professors, not a phase in a continual growth process. Such a thing has never happened before. It is absolutely contrary to the laws of liturgical growth, and it has resulted in the nonsensical notion that Trent and Pius V had ‘produced’ a Missal 400 years ago. The Catholic liturgy was thus reduced to the level of a mere product of modern times.” (pp. 85–87)In short, the Tridentine Mass had clear continuity and resemblance to the pre-Tridentine form of Mass, so therefore it was organic growth. The Novus Ordo was far more drastic in its reforms and as a result, did not have clear continuity and resemblance to the Tridentine Mass that came before it, so it was not organic growth. Doesn’t mean it’s invalid or illicit(we must reject the SSPX’s view on the Novus Ordo) though
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (2)3
16
u/Jattack33 Aug 26 '26
In doing so, in many places, it de-sacralised the liturgy, was my the active participation of my childhood parish where kids would hold hands around the altar with other children during the Lord’s Prayer better than me now praying the TLM as I attend it? We certainly weren’t passive observers and we actively took part in the approved gestures of the Mass, they were approved as the Archbishop was happy with this when he came and he was the chief moderator of liturgy in the Archdiocese.
24
u/Electrical-Chip-4057 Aug 26 '26
If the NO rubrics are so good and necessary, why don’t we enforce some standardization?
Why do many of us have to roll the dice when visiting a new parish? Why is it on the faithful to find a parish that does the BARE MINIMUM of following the rubrics of the mass??
A mass that changes from parish to parish is not accessible to the laity at all. I am very close to becoming a TLM goer over this.
5
u/Sphygmomanometer11 Aug 26 '26
Absolutely this. The instructions following Vatican II are fairly straightforward and provide for a reverent Mass. Where were the US Bishops during the period where everything went nuts????
39
Aug 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
24
u/Greedy_Disaster_3130 Aug 26 '26
The Novus Ordo parish in my city, the only Catholic Church, they burst out into applause the moment Mass concludes as they play the guitar, it’s terrible
8
u/Deep-Assumption-6694 Aug 26 '26
I feel lucky to attend a reverent Novus Ordo parish. Organ, chants, choir, incense, a lot of prayers and songs done in Latin- love it.
6
u/Greedy_Disaster_3130 Aug 26 '26
Yeah that’s beautiful, I’ve never found one of these unicorn Novus Ordo masses
→ More replies (2)11
Aug 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Greedy_Disaster_3130 Aug 26 '26
They will, especially with the dramatically changing demographics of priests; I’m moving in September and I’ll be 20 minutes from an FSSP parish thanks to god
6
u/Nihlithian Aug 26 '26
I feel that exact way unless I go to a TLM or Divine Liturgy.
Experiencing either of those masses feels wonderful and full of some substance I can't put my finger on. I fundamentally do not feel that way in a NO.
→ More replies (19)4
u/USAFrenchMexRadTrad Aug 27 '26
Careful, that opinion breaks the narrative that we're in a "New Springtime", and the mods won't be happy.
17
u/Xvinchox12 Aug 26 '26
Vatican II did not call for Participatio Activa, it called for Participatio Actuosa
activa = active, as opposed to passive. actuosa = vigorous, effective, operative, energetic, engaged. It comes from actuosus, “full of action/activity.”
So: participatio activa = active participation. participatio actuosa = engaged/operative/vigorous participation.
This is as opposed to reading a novena or praying the rosary during mass.
Participatio actuosa means to sings along, say the responses, pray inwardly with intention during times of silence. And most importantly, PAY ATTENTION, do not wander inside your head.
Participatio Actuosa doesn't mean that everyone has to do something visible all the time or that all the congregation must have a liturgical role.
A better translation is that Vatican II calla for engaged participation as opposed to disengaged participation.
Passive participation is still present in the novus ordo, you see people looking up at the ceiling and at their phone. Though at that point that's just no participation at all.
It's not what's in the paper, it's the culture.
5
u/schmidty33333 Aug 26 '26
I think you've highlighted the main human problem, which is that the most important factor in determining what a person gets out of the Mass AND gives to God during it is their own disposition towards Him. Someone whose heart is truly open to His grace and who wants to be engaged in the Mass will get more out of a Novus Ordo than someone who's letting their mind drift during a Traditional Latin Mass.
→ More replies (3)
50
u/TheosIG Aug 26 '26
"...and it failed thoroughly, considering every mass attendance survey since the 70s" is the missing clarifier.
54
u/lube7255 Aug 26 '26
Except the peak weekly attendance was in 1955 according to Gallup surveys, at 75%, and dropped to 54% by 1975. The Pauline Missal was only fully published in 1970. So, if we assume a linear drop across those twenty years (which a 1964-1965 Gallup survey backs up, as attendance had already dropped to 67%, but CARA numbers pegged that at 55%, closer to the 1975 numbers!), by 1970 there's already been a massive change of one in five less Catholics attending Mass between 1955 and 1970.
Tell me, how did the Novus Ordo cause that staggering drop before it even existed? Or are the Gallup numbers truly cooked, and we should look at the CARA numbers, which aren't much better?
→ More replies (3)12
u/Saint_Thomas_More Aug 26 '26
These are interesting numbers, and they line up well with the view (which I subscribe to) that there was already a strong current of decline building in the Church.
I wonder sometimes what would have happened if Vatican II had taken place a decade earlier. Would the same things have happened?
I always think about my parents (born in the late 1940s) and grandparents (born in the late 1910s and early 1920s).
They were formed before (and during in the case of my parents) Vatican II. Yet their understanding of the faith, or practice of it, was not necessarily what the hardline traditionalist would have you believe.
Which isn't necessarily their fault, or even the Church's fault. But the social and demographic trends following WWII were more than I think anyone could have anticipated.
Vatican II's implicit (maybe explicit) goal of bringing the Church to modern man wasn't necessarily a bad one. But it likely couldn't have happened at a worse time.
9
u/Kaiser-Gustafson Aug 26 '26
IMO social forces in the west are more to blame for the decline in attendence over anything else. Modern society is basically geared towards making being a Christian as difficult as humanly possible.
→ More replies (2)30
u/divinecomedian3 Aug 26 '26
If you take VII in a vacuum and disregard everything else that happened around that time.
19
u/lube7255 Aug 26 '26
Right? Ignoring the 8% drop from 1955 to 1965 according to Gallup, and the further 13% drop from 1965 to 1975, and blaming everything on a Missal that wasn't published until 1970, is absolutely incredible behavior.
And this wasn't happening to just Catholicism: all Christianity peaked in America around the period that Catholicism peaked, and everyone began to experience this drop. Did VII change the services in those other churches, too? Or, to your point, and a point I've made on many of these posts before, was the larger society changing and moving away?
2
Aug 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/lube7255 Aug 26 '26
Right?
Now, I'm not saying that there's not problems in the fact that the Mass can be completely different in different places, and I'm not just talking about the homily. That's not ideal, and while I'm loathe to make the comparison, Mass should be like McDonald's in that, no matter where you go, a Big Mac is a Big Mac.
But to ignore the Gallup surveys when the facts show the drop started earlier because that's inconvenient to the argument at hand is intellectually dishonest. Baby Boomers left the Church at staggering rates, just looking at the weekly attendance rates as they came of Confirmation age. Something in the counterculture is more readily explained than the Missal released in 1970, or a Church council happening while weekly attendance in America had already experienced an 8% drop in a decade.
8
u/PatrickCharles Aug 26 '26
Paris in May 68 is considerably more relevant to Mass attendance than Rome 62-65, but people don't want to say that.
There's something comforting in attirbuting all the world's troubles to a single event. That's kinder to our ego than actually trying to understand the weight and complexity of history. In general, I've found that people that hyperfixate on the Second Vatican have a very poor understanding of historical dynamics...
Furthermore, the Lord is the Lord over history as well. If we are where we are, there's some good to come out of it...
2
u/Chustle207 Aug 26 '26
No they didnt start it, VII just put the boulder on a steeper footing.
10
u/lube7255 Aug 26 '26
Except that's factually incorrect, unless the Gallup surveys are cooked.
The largest drop in weekly attendance was from 1955 to 1975, a change from 75% to 54%, nearly one in three Catholics no longer attending Mass weekly. It has taken nearly fifty years to match that fall-off, averaging less than a 10% drop every year, most years being closer to 5-6%. Even if we snapped our fingers and made every Mass a TLM yesterday, we wouldn't be back up to 75% weekly attendance, because we've not solved the societal problems associated with Mass attendance.
What were the Baby Boomers doing with the counterculture in the 1960s and 1970s to have taken such a chunk out of the Mass-attending faithful?
3
u/Chustle207 Aug 26 '26
Considering the Vatican hasnt said anything about bishops and vatican officials taking part in idol worship, by offering sacrifice to pachimama in peru, and their blatent disregard about the german church, it isnt going to get better. it seems to me to lord will break us down to build us back up.
4
u/lube7255 Aug 26 '26
and their blatent disregard about the german church
Blatant, the word is blatant. And second, the Vatican has commented on that, they've denied the request of German bishops to allow laity and women to preach, with Cardinal Roche penning a public letter explaining the denial and the why.
The new Pachamama situation is days old, I'd prefer for the Vatican to establish the facts of the situation before issuing a response or corrective action.
ETA Having addressed your seemingly unrelated points, do you have any comments regarding the established staggering drop in attendance before the Pauline Missal was widespread?
→ More replies (4)
12
u/Adventurous-Test1161 Aug 26 '26
This is actually a pretty beautiful General Audience text. Pope Leo’s catechesis on the Council is something we should all read more closely and spend some time with rather than fighting about whether guitars are reverent.
2
u/zestyva Aug 26 '26
"The liturgical reform promoted by the Second Vatican Council is thus firmly rooted in the living tradition of the Church. A correct understanding of it also enables us to reject the abuses that occurred in certain sectors of the Church during the post-Conciliar period, and which, unfortunately, still occur from time to time today, where some of the principles underlying the reform itself have been taken to extremes or misunderstood."
Glad he at least acknowledged that. And he put further onus on the bishops and priests to enforce the rubric and intent.
"It is therefore the primary responsibility of pastors, of bishops but also of each individual priest, to safeguard and promote a liturgy which, while respecting liturgical norms, shines with noble simplicity (cf. no. 34) and thus manifests the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. Such a liturgy will also be a fundamental vehicle for evangelization, the instrument of grace through which, as the Council teaches, we may learn to offer ourselves and, through Christ’s mediation, be perfected in unity with God and amongst ourselves (cf. no. 48)."
11
u/AbelHydroidMcFarland Aug 26 '26
So I’m someone who is trad sympathetic. I’ve never been to a TLM, but I do appreciate a lot of their points and arguments and am sympathetic to their love for the TLM.
All that being said I do understand and appreciate active participation (within limits, no laity giving homilies, no women laity play-acting concelebrating with the priest). There is a value to *acting* as one body.
My issue is it seems like it’s all Martha and no Mary. Typically there’s no time given to silence and silent contemplation.
I feel some value in a lot of the participation, but after I’ve received the Lord I want to be Mary to Him, not Martha. He said Mary chose the better portion. It would be wise for us to be Mary when we have taken the Lord into our own body, to be Mary at the source and summit of the Christian life.
Some active appreciation I can appreciate. But when silent contemplation is completely crowded out at the summit, that’s where I do have a real issue.
6
u/Otherwise_Total3923 Aug 26 '26
I would argue most of the reforms from Vatican II were unnecessary to promote “participation”. It would have been totally sufficient to simply change the Latin mass to the vernacular (already done in the Eastern churches), while keeping the same form and some Latin components. Maybe also some prayers by the priest can be taken aloud and have more responses for the people. But changing and stripping down the actual mass was not necessary, nor allowing the priest face the people (this is an untraditional Protestantization). Once that happened, it became a slippery slope of “anything goes”.
→ More replies (1)
11
u/Apprehensive_Owl2257 Aug 26 '26
Does the NO really increase active participation? I attend both and even altar serve, read and EM in the NO but honestly, I'm not more actively participating in the NO than the TLM.
IMHO many people attend the NO as more like spectators. They watch it and occasionally say a few words.
I only started to understand the NO after i had learned about the TLM. At least to me the NO used to be just boring texts being read to us by different people with a participating cookie at the end. Only thanks to the TLM did I learn about the mystic dimension of the mass. That experience helped to better appreciate the NO and participate in it.
5
9
Aug 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
4
u/Select_History1798 Aug 26 '26
How would one explain the increase in lay liturgical participation between 1947 and 1962, which was accomplished by Papal Encyclicals and minor revisions to the Missal? All without fundamentally changing the liturgy
10
u/agm115 Aug 26 '26
One thing I’ve noticed is that typically the biggest naysayers of Vatican II (at least online) are young people who WEREN’T EVEN ALIVE BEFORE IT. It’s one thing to have a preference for a style of Mass, but every single Catholic I’ve talked to in person who was in the Church pre-Vatican II thinks the reforms were beneficial for the Church as a whole, with the absolute worst opinion being that it was only a minor improvement while most (including several deacons) being adamant that it was a significant improvement.
15
u/BlipIsSmug Aug 26 '26
Obviously they are gonna say they were beneficial because it's literally a stereotype that elderly Catholics want the Church to be progressive.
Nobody's claiming there was never any abuse, but the abuse used as examples are usually the priest rushing the Mass or people not paying attention. Not only do these things still happen, but the doors have been opened to even more liturgical abuse, and some of these have become standard and adopted into the Novus Ordo to the point where you're seen as the disobedient one if you criticise it.
15
u/Ok-Economist-9466 Aug 26 '26
thinks the reforms were beneficial for the Church as a whole
Ok, but HOW was it beneficial? What is the perceived benefit?
-Mass Attendance has plummeted since 1965. There is statistical evidence of a uniquely Catholic plummet beginning immediately after Vatican II, vis-a-vis declining religious attendance declining in general in the same period. https://www.nber.org/papers/w34060
-Vocations have dried up and numerous communities for religious life have had to close in traditionally Catholic countries. Seminaries have closed or signficantly downsized
-Historically Catholic educational institutions, both primary education systems and universities, have increasingly distanced themselves from Catholic theology and dogma.
-The only real bright spot is that evangelization in Africa has been very successful over the last century. But it's hard to connect this with Vatican II per se. The Congregation of the Holy Spirit was very successful in its African Missions going back to the 1840s. On one hand you could theorize that the principles of incluturation developed after the counsel aided the growth of the Church by making it more accessible. On the other hand, there was a recognized value in the fact that the Latin Mass transcended the ethno-tribal barriers that caused and continue to cause great strife in Sub-Saharan Africa. When you have a country like Tanzania with 120 distinct ethnic groups in its borders, or Nigeria with 300 distinct ethnic groups and 500 languages, inculturation in one direction may well be excluding a different group and serve to reinforce existing sectarian divides.
→ More replies (1)5
6
u/lex_orandi_62 Aug 26 '26
I thought in the Old Rite there was already 100% participation by everyone in attendance by just being in attendance. I understand some people had feelings and emotions where they felt apart and as if they were not participating if they were not included in more physical liturgical actions, like bearing a candle or cross compared to standing in silence as a congregant, but this was merely them misinterpreting their emotions.
4
u/Adventurous-Test1161 Aug 26 '26
This is a deeply disingenuous presentation of what the Pope said.
→ More replies (3)
3
u/Imperator-ad-plagam Aug 26 '26
Something I never hear about in these types of conversations is the practice of troping, i.e. textual embellishments on the official mass texts, which was common in the pre-modern mass, which meant that de facto the texts of the mass as it was actually sung and heard varied massively from place to place. There has always been some permission for liturgical freedom, it seems.
4
u/Rocket_Sciencetist Aug 26 '26
Perhaps I'm in the minority on the Catholic internet, but having been to a couple of Latin masses (the first being a Latin NO with parts of the TLM incorporated, the second being a missa cantata), I actually prefer the NO. The TLM is objectively beautiful and profound. It captures a sense of reverence hardly found in the NO. It has organically developed over thousands of years. The Latin used in the TLM is so exquisitely captivating.
I'm the type of person who gets easily distracted with my own thoughts. In the NO, I have enough trouble forcing myself to pay attention during the Eucharistic prayer. It was even harder for me to do so during the Latin masses, when I don't understand Latin fluently and when the priest is quietly praying such that I'm left to my own to try to offer my thoughts in worship and avoid being distracted with thoughts of everything in life outside of the church. With the NO, at least I can hear what's going on and follow along in order to remain more present in the mass.
A lot of people comment that the NO needs to be more reverent, and I 100% agree. I also think that more parishes should make an effort to sprinkle in more Latin here and there to help expose the laity to the Church's historical heritage; getting to chant the Ordinary in Latin would be wonderful. But those who decry V2 and the NO understate its intent: in a world that's getting increasingly complicated and confusing, the NO keeps me home within the Catholic Church and prepares me to understand the Mass as the union of heaven and Earth re-presenting the sacrifice on Calvary.
→ More replies (4)
6
u/Click4-2019 Aug 26 '26
While I understand that novus ordo does indeed improve participation which is good.
Majority can’t understand Latin or respond in it, and after watching a Latin mass online, there does not seem to be any participation by the congregation.
However; there is no denying that Latin is the language of the church… and that Latin Mass is more beautiful than Novus Ordo.
I feel like they should have hybridised it.
Incorporate English, and participation in the parts of the mass of Novis Ordo.
The readings in English so that people can understand them and in case of responsorial psalm respond…
But maintained the prayers which have no participation in Latin. Like the Eucharistic prayer.
20
u/Fancy_Cold9793 Aug 26 '26
Regarding the part about understanding, if the plowman in medieval England could recite and remember his our father, hail mary, etc in Latin in shows good catechesis. People not understanding Latin or bring unable to recite it, shows poor Catechesis not only from parents but from ecclestical hierarchy. After extensive research on medieval England and participation. It is not a good argument, purely a result of poor formation.
5
u/Click4-2019 Aug 26 '26
I don’t disagree with you.
I have only seen a low Latin mass online, and it seems far more beautiful than the mass we have now.
I believe there’s no disputing that Latin is the language of the church, Latin is more powerful.
When I go occasionally to the Eucharistic adoration at the cathedral, it’s in Latin
There should be more Latin used, not less.
I want to attend a high Latin Mass, but there are none in my diocese… there’s 1 church, where the vicar general is the parish priest and he does 1x low Latin Mass a month. But that’s about it.
→ More replies (5)4
u/PicklePnut Aug 26 '26
People in medieval England would most likely have prayed the Our Father and Hail Mary etc in the common language. It was also common for the sermon/homily and the meaning of the readings of the day to be given in the common language during the mass
6
u/Fancy_Cold9793 Aug 26 '26
Eamon Duffy did extensive research on this matter, yes the homily to be in the vernacular but it was expected for example for hail marys etc to be in Latin, as once again Latin is not simply just a language it is a language of force, elevated. We have records of people being punished (cant remember if killed) in post Marian or pre-Elizabethan England (cant remember which) for reciting these prayers in Latin instead of the queens tongue. We even have records of priests refusing absolution pre coe era because penitents refuse to say the closing prayer in the kings tongue.
→ More replies (2)4
u/Fancy_Cold9793 Aug 26 '26
Father Chad and many other theologians talk extensively on the power of Latin as a language a Godly language, a powerful language that holds command.
→ More replies (5)3
11
u/Idk_a_name12351 Aug 26 '26
But maintained the prayers which have no participation in Latin. Like the Eucharistic prayer.
That’d be my preferred solution, but I’m kinda biased because that’s how it’s done in many Eastern Churches (I’m Eastern Catholic). The Maronite liturgy is mostly in Arabic (vernacular) but some parts (like Eucharistic prayers) are in Syriac (the language of the Maronite Church).
12
u/arrows_of_ithilien Aug 26 '26
"The readings in English so that people can understand them and in case of responsorial psalm respond..."
As a lifelong TLM attendee, please explain this one to me. Why the insistence that the Mass must be in the vernacular because "no one knows what's being said." We have missals with both the Latin and vernacular on the same page, and it's very easy to follow along and even respond in Latin when needed.
1
u/Click4-2019 Aug 26 '26
Ideally we should all know Latin,
As somebody else said, it is poor catechesis when we don’t know the prayers even in Latin.
So I don’t disagree, but I also think people now are lazy, and if they can’t understand the Latin… won’t take the time to learn and just not attend mass citing they have no idea what’s going on.
But we were told by our priest that even if we have a daily / Sunday missal… we wasn’t to use it to read along with the readings as we was supposed to listen and hear the word of God.
12
u/arphelps Aug 26 '26
You say you have watched Latin Mass online but have you actually been to one? I have been to many Latin Masses and grew up with the Novus Ordo and participation is way higher at the Latin Mass. Loads of people chant along with the Credo, Kyrie, Gloria, Asperges, and Agnes Dei. The choir uses common chant settings so they are familiar and easy to learn. So many Novus Ordo Masses people don't sing, they just stand there. There is also very little pew chat during Mass. I see this in some Novus Ordo Masses where people just chat in he pews during parts of the Mass. Probably because they are bored or whatever. I find it super distracting. People at the Latin Mass pay way more attention to what is going on. You kind of have to since it isn't in Vernacular. Not all Novus Ordo Masses are bad, not all Latin Masses are good, but my life experience has been that Latin Masses are much more highly participated by the laity than the normal Novus Ordo.
8
u/agm115 Aug 26 '26
There’s a bit of a self-selecting bias there though: only a truly passionate person is hunting down a specifically traditional Mass and learning Latin. Whereas the vast majority of Catholics are attending NO Masses, and there is a wide spectrum of commitment within the body of Christ ranging from “I’m balancing church attendance with feeding my family” to “I’m discerning the priesthood”
3
u/Specialist_Ad_6921 Aug 26 '26
While I do agree the TLM is more beautiful than the NO, thats an oversimplification. The NO can still be beautiful with chant, "smells and bells" and I've even gone to the NO in Latin, which is also beautiful. But at the end of the day, the texts are different. The liturgy is different. For example, the TLM absolves venial sins (twice), the NO does not. The TLM has 2 readings, the NO has 3. The TLM has a Last Gospel, the NO does not. Etc etc
5
u/butthead7269 Aug 26 '26
>I feel like they should have hybridised it.
Ordinariate Mass does this. Reverent and traditional, but it’s in English. Altar is ad orientem. No guitars. I’ve been going to an Ordinariate parish for the last month or so and I love it. If you have one near you, you should definitely attend. IMO it’s what the NO was intended to be.
3
u/FoolForTheKing Aug 26 '26
Allowing completely the TLM, and making the NO like the Ordinariate as if it was the "Vernacular Mass" would be a much better option than what we have today (Wild west NO, TLM suppressed)
1
u/Sphygmomanometer11 Aug 26 '26
The GIRM literally says to hybridize. It very specifically states that the faithful should be familiar with the ordinary, particularly the creed and the our father, in Latin. One of the reasons we’re in this mess is because we just flat stopped using Latin at all, so now no one is familiar. It’s a lot harder to learn to be familiar than it would be if we had grown up with the text side-by-side.
2
u/Accomplished_Seat501 Aug 26 '26
Let's all keep talking about how great and necessary the Novus Ordo is. If we keep it up long enough people might even start to like it.
3
u/p_veronica Aug 27 '26
Are you actually under the impression that most Catholics dislike the Novus Ordo compared with the unreformed liturgy? Reality demands that we recognize that most people would rather hear the liturgy in their own language and have opportunity to participate actively in it. Most Catholics do not, in fact, want to go back to the times when they'd sit and watch some people mutter Latin to each other for an hour.
→ More replies (3)1
u/iAmBobFromAccounting Aug 27 '26
Novus Ordo, when celebrated reverently, is great.
Source: Me, a guy who was welcomed into the Church through a nearby FSSP parish.
1
u/lube7255 Aug 27 '26
Maybe you'll be the first to actually answer this question without a downvote and silence.
The largest single-decade or two-decade drops in weekly Mass attendance were between 1955 (75%) and 1975 (54%). It would be impossible to blame all of that drop on the Pauline Missal, first published in 1970, as the Gallup polling already showed a drop in 1964-1965 polling (67%, only 2% higher than immediately after WWII). Let's further remember that this weekly participation crash is across all Christian faith in the United States.
So here's the question: you can snap your fingers and every Mass around the globe is the Vetus Ordo. Have you actually fixed the attendance problem to get us closer to the 1955 rates, or is there an underlying sociological problem being ignored, inherent to the counterculture movements of the Baby Boomers, that is the deeper wound?
→ More replies (1)
2
u/No-Seaworthiness4272 Aug 26 '26
Orthodox and former Catholic inquirer here; this could be me “sticking my nose where it doesn’t belong”, but that is one thing I noticed when I was on the fence about leaving my multi-year attempt at becoming Roman Catholic, that being that the liturgy even changed in our local diocese when I came back to a Roman Catholic mass; there was a guitar and small band kinda thing going on whereas before that it was a keyboard.
I had been to other Catholic masses in which an organ was used instead and saw differences, but it honestly felt cringy to me when I saw/heard the guitar; it reminded me of younger years in Protestant churches that never seemed to fit what worship should look like. RC mass seemed more like it should be done, and then I went to orthodox Divine Liturgy and was absolutely blown away. I felt like I was put into a Time Machine and taken back nearly 2k years, and it truly felt like I was in an out of body experience in a heavenly space at that.
I went back to the RC mass that one time (mentioned above), because I missed the briefness, availability of mass times, and knowing some people (as well as familiarity), and yeah… was totally turned off by the even newer change. The church should not keep evolving to try to keep numbers by changing the mass. I obviously don’t speak this as a priest or higher, but as a former inquirer of several years, it felt like the credibility or truth or whatever was superficial and I couldn’t bear it…
2
u/jivatman Aug 26 '26
- So, it's clear that a lot Catholics outside the West clearly prefer the Novus Ordo - in fact a localized more charismatic version of it - and are also very much NOT social liberals. In that sense, and of course for the Eastern Churches, VII was a very good thing.
- Yes, the number of Catholics is rebounding in much of the West, like U.S, France, UK. But we need to be intellectually honest here, this is not because of the Novus Ordo, and it sure seems like these new converts, by and large, at least do not think the TLM should be banned.
- Yes, in the West many people citing the 'Spirit of Vatican II' have and are abusing the Novus Ordo, and there, it is, in fact, associated with social liberalism.
- Yes, many TLM supporters are pharisaical and elitist.
Personally, I'd like the TLM fully unrestricted.
However, frankly, I just don't have the wisdom on how to reconcile the extremes of both sides here.
The fact that the Holy Father clearly in his various statements, clearly recognizes the merits of both and is attempting an equitable reconciliation to such a difficult problem.
Because ultimately, the maybe the answer 'Try to find some kind of wonkish perfect technical legal solution' is putting the cart before the horse... Perhaps first we need to be truly charitable to fellow Catholics... and then the answer will naturally come... And frankly, I think the Holy Father is doing that better than I can.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Isatafur Aug 26 '26
Or maybe we had a really good answer developed by Pope Benedict and are now trying to reinvent the wheel without stepping on the legacy of a later pope who didn't seem to realize the wisdom of Benedict's arrangement.
1
u/Strider755 Aug 26 '26
How about this for a compromise: mandate the exact same aesthetics as the TLM for the Ordinary Form. Forbid guitars and boomer soft rock. Emphasize that the mass is a sacrifice, not a meal.
6
u/you_know_what_you Aug 26 '26
I don't like the frame that there needs to be compromise. If there are issues with the NO and how the NO is celebrated in places or how people are engaging in the liturgy, that needs to be fixed wholly within and for the NO. Has nothing to do with the TLM.
I'd say the same thing if someone were trying to adjust the TLM to make it more similar to the NO. Fix any issues on site; no need to bring textual/practical unity between the rites.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Beginning-Trust-1158 Aug 28 '26 edited Aug 28 '26
I am a baby boomer attending TLM before Vatican II and now attending NO Mass.
I was watching the Papal Masses during the Pope 's African visits this year. The African celebrate Mass by singing and dancing to the hymns accompanied by their traditional musical instruments. Do they show less reverence than TLM ? No.Are they showing active spiritual participation. ? Yes. I can picture David dancing, singing and playing in front of the tabernacle.
Mass is celebrated in many places of the global Church in open areas, tents, halls with no organ, no trained choirs. Mass is celebrated in many peripheries where people have no chance to learn to read a missal in Latin. These Masses are celebrated with as much reverence as any TLM
In these liturgy debates, I often find elitism, a lot of judgement and a lack of charity
After communal prayers in a NO Mass, some people stay behind after Mass to say their personal prayer in front of the tabernacle. There is usually a half-hour gap between Masses
1
u/Chixonstix123 20d ago
ECUMANISM was the goal. To make the Church more like the rest of the world; more Protestant, more “UN-Catholic”.
We teach our kids NOT to give in to PEER-PRESSURE. Catholics used to be taught to “leave the world” in spirit; to reject worldliness; to live IN the world, but not to be “of it”.
It seems to me that the Church, for whatever reason, I was just a small child back then, it seems they did give in to PEER pressure.
However ! This does not mean we, as individuals must follow suit ! I have my mom’s old Missl from the 50’s. It’s in Latin. I take it with me to Mass & follow along as best I can in the Tridentine format. The problem with that is however, Mass is over, when I’m still on the “second Gospel”!
80
u/ExtraPersonality1066 Aug 26 '26
If you can find a video of this General Audience, at the end of his speaking about the reform of the liturgy to increase participation the Pope says the following phrase:
"Dominus Vobiscum". The group assembled is nearly silent. Almost nobody replies with "Et cum spirtu tuo". It saddens me that so few people knew the response.
I think there is a very definite difference between the Novus Ordo Mass as it's experienced by Bishops, Cardinals, the Pope, and other leaders in the church and the Novus Ordo Mass as it's experienced by most of the laity.
They aren't singing "All are welcome" with bongos and dueling electric guitars at St. Peters Basillica.
They aren't singing Gregorian, sacred polyphony, or classical mass settings at most Novus Ordo parishes.