"For very good reasons, the Church, through conciliar legislation, decided to move away from what had become an overly elaborate form of celebrating the Mass.”
A low EF Mass is less elaborate than a good many OF Masses. To the extent there is any ornate-ness in the liturgy - well, are we or are we not celebrating our Lord and Saviour and preparing our souls for receiving Him?
The irony is the Roman Liturgy has always been characterized by its relative linear structure and sparseness in comparison to other rites. The continued hand wringing over structure and "ornateness" shows a lack of historical understanding - and of human nature to boot.
Funny how those who ruthlessly want to suppress the traditional mass and sacraments all seem to agree that Roche said nothing, when this article does a great job of pointing out how he very obviously did. They are clearly in denial and defense mode. The question is why Roche said what he did.
1. Nobody cares about the Mass in Latin. Aside from a quip about Greek, that's not the point of the TLM at all. "Latin" is shorthand.
2. My personal experience has been that Latin Masses (I mean 1962-Missal Masses obviously, not Masses celebrated in Latin) work very well in a parish setting.
1, longer form: The Novus Ordo offered in Latin is the worst of both worlds---Latin which is sometimes inelegant as well as less accessible, and a slap in the face reminder of how many other differences we're still deprived of experiencing. Latin on the Novus Ordo, I daresay, is lipstick on a pig. Not that I think the Novus Ordo is a pig, but it feels much more porcine when said in Latin. When I hear Latin I expect prayers at the foot of the altar, ad orientem, a silent canon, a gradual, a last gospel, the triple "non sum dignus", an explosion of signs of the cross throughout the elevation, bells being rung at all opportunities, permission to sit for the longer sung ordinaries, and a blessing at Communion ("*may* the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ *preserve* your soul into eternal life") rather than a (very terse!) proclamation of what It is ("the Body of Christ", not even "Our Lord Jesus Christ"). Just reading the Novus Ordo in Latin gives me exactly none of those things, and introducing most of them would require violating rubrics---something the priests who celebrate the old rite would be particularly unwilling to do. (I've been privileged to recite the prayers at the foot of the altar quietly while processing to a private NO Mass once, and it's possible though extremely uncommon to sing the gradual in place of the responsorial psalm at an OF Mass as well. Ad orientem is of course also possible, though apparently it's a politically dangerous act these days. I believe the other things I listed would all be explicitly illicit in the NO.)
2, longer form: When you have religious orders or devoted groups saying them, I've found that there can be a lot of opulence and stand-offishness to them. Often, though not always, in the parish setting it feels much more integrated, and much humbler---not only by dint of not having the same forces available that dedicated priestly socities have, but even by desire. I've served for a Requiem Mass where the priests were literally tittering happily about the Belgian vestments prior, and they were making bad puns prior to the Mass because they were so happy. Then they hung around after the Mass like parish priests normally do. I haven't often seen that level of availability from non-diocesan priests offering TLMs. And those same priests have generally offered the Novus Ordo Mass in a way which, while reverent, is hardly "cryptotraditionalist" or whatever nasty words you want to invent---simply according to [a traditional, hermeneutic-of-continuity-based reading of] the Second Vatican Council and the GIRM. I've certainly enjoyed Latin (again, Tridentine/Traditional Latin, just in case anyone is still confused) Masses offered by both diocesan priests who celebrate both rites, and religious priests who only celebrate the old rite. But I have seen no evidence that diocesan-integrated Latin Masses can't be, or aren't usually, done well.
I'm not sure I agree with you about Latin Novus Ordo. Let me stipulate that I prefer the EF as a starting point, but in terms of celebrations of the new Mass in Latin my experience has been positive. I like the idea of Latin as a sort of liturgical language, a la Hebrew in Jewish services. Then again, my main experience with Latin Novus Ordo Masses were beautifully celebrated and chanted Masses at St. Matthew's Cathedral in DC. Also, that's what got me interested in then attending the EF. I think of the Latin NO as a sort of a gateway drug to the EF.
I otherwise agree with your second observation fully. One thing I'll add as a bit of a non sequitur but which has been something regularly on my mind: if the aim of the reforms was to make the Mass less priest-centric, the actual celebration of the NO is in fact MORE priest-centric, or at least it is more changeable to the disposition and character of the celebrant.
Very well said. It annoys me how many of the people who are in favor of restrictions on the TLM seem to have a very surface level understanding of why people prefer the TLM over the NO, or think that it is primarily about the use of Latin.
I do think that *some* reforms of the NO were positive, such as the people responding instead of only the servers, the reform of the lectionary (although that has its own drawbacks), and readings in the vernacular.
For what it's worth, the mass that I attend (St. Agnes in St. Paul, MN) is a NO celebrated very traditionally - ad orientem, Latin prayers, chanted introit/gradual/alleluia/communion, people sit for the Kyrie/Gloria/Credo sung by the choir w/ orchestra, most of the canon is prayed quietly during the Sanctus aside from the words of consecration, post-consecration Benedictus, communion using the altar rail, etc. Unlike many "reform of the reform" parishes, they never stopped doing those things with the introduction of the 1969 missal. I feel like they have achieved a good compromise in preserving tradition while implementing the reforms as intended by the council. But on the other hand some of the changes and omissions in the NO feel even more apparent, such as the offertory, introductory rites and post-communion prayers.
No, no, no. The Novus Ordo in Latin is not the worst of all worlds. For a start it is remarkably good at banishing guitars, so it has at least an antiseptic effect.
“Latin on the Novus Ordo, I daresay, is lipstick on a pig.”
Isn’t this backwards? Each Roman Missal has been promulgated in Latin. The 1970 missal and subsequent editions were then translated into vernacular tongues, but Latin remains the language of the, well, Latin Rite. It’s not an add-on in any way.
Fair enough. "Lipstick on a pig" was a bit harsh, and in a general sense I'll retract that.
I do think that the NO Mass was never intended to be said *entirely* in Latin on a broad basis. If nothing else, Pope Francis is on record as saying that reading the readings in Latin is not encouraged. And I'm pretty sure Pope Paul VI spoke of the NO as being intended for the vernacular.
Singing *parts* of the NO Mass in Latin can be very pretty and uplifting!
I am fully with you on the fact that Novus Ordo in Latin is the worst possible application of the “reform of the reform.”
My fervent hope is that over the next generation, when the “Spirit of Vatican II” generation of bishops and priests hostile to the TLM have fully passed and even the more “progressive” leaning priests see it as just an expression of the Church’s diversity are in charge (as is my experience with any and every Catholic under about the age of 40), we’ll see a movement that says: “Hey, let’s formulate an ‘ideal’ version of the TLM”—with, for example, restored Holy Week rites that were reformed even before Vatican II—“and then go back to the principles of the council and start translating the TLM into vernacular and revising some of the rubrics and making a few adaptations to the calendar.”
TLM in vernacular, once it happens, will be about 5,000% more in line with what I think people are implicitly seeking than Mass of Paul VI in Latin, when they say they want reform of the reform. They just don’t know it because there’s no actual option for it at this point.
Practically every comment I've heard from TLMers (except dePippo's) included some version of groaning "It's not about the Latin!!!!"
Seriously, do people think we're a bunch of Latinists who just can't scratch the hic hoc haec itch any other way? It takes approximately 5 min. of watching a Tridentine Mass on youtube to find out that there are a lot of other changes. At this point those who suggest a Latin NO as a substitute either haven't had the time or inclination to think about it, or are simply intellectually lazy.
The TLM works great in a parish setting. That's the primary way it was celebrated, almost worldwide, for centuries. That's the primary way I've experienced it (FSSP is close enough). But I think what was meant, in claiming that it doesn't work well in parish settings, is that if you put the TLM and the NO in the same parish, than the liturgical wars may go from cold to hot. Not that they have to, not that they often do (outside my experience), but if it's going to get bad, that's where it'll get bad. Obviously this can also be solved by allowing TLM-only parishes, particularly in high-population areas. Or by, radical idea, charity.
The ars celebrandi is a remarkably important lost element of our faith. But your comments don’t touch on any of the deeper elements of Eucharistic theology. I want to return to TLM, but the obsession with the external forms. It risks becoming surface level. The Lord arrives from heaven at the hands of the priest, and comes down the steps of the altar to meet his people at the rail. To touch and transform our lives to become more like him. But the external forms (and keep in mind at one point even the Tridentine was contemporary) as beautiful as they are have to point to something more real. It’s becoming just a contemporary form of politics and boundary marking in the same way the East/West had a sort of social schism many years before they found the theological reasons to confirm why the Church had to split.
As far as I am aware, the biggest single change to the Tridentine Rite was instituted by St. Gregory the Great, adding a large number of propers and changing the time for one or two things.
I don't think there would have been a social schism without TC. They shut down a lot of TLMs that were being celebrated at diocesan parishes, alongside NO Masses, so the two groups were probably mostly content to exist side by side, as long as they were allowed to. The discontentedness on the individual and local level will now be harder to work out, as segregation has been implemented.
This is something of an argument for re-instituting things like good catechesis, Friday abstinence, the Angelus, adoration, Eucharistic processions, and the daily rosary. These things can unify across liturgical distinctions, and they can do it at the lay or parish level.
My experience is that the homilies, Confession, retreats, and the general parish life are what counter the inclination to become surface level. Those who will not do things outside the Mass will be superficial regardless of where they go.
I’m all in favor of allowing TLM in parishes. I don’t think the communities where I experienced TLM necessarily had to become as politically charged and suspicious of outsiders as they did. Nor are we doomed to be that way in the future.
Good book recommendation. The Mass of the Roman Rite: its origins and development (I think published circa 1955) by Joseph Jungmann traces almost 400 pages of changes in the Latin Mass. It was not unified, and as it developed did so unequally and at different paces depending on what country you were in. Of course, theologically, the Mass is eternally the same everywhere and always has been.
It is certainly easier to avoid becoming suspicious of outsiders if there aren't any outsiders trying to shut you down. I think I've heard of some parishes in various Middle Eastern countries having guards at the doors and requiring someone to vouch for you if you're new. I'd hate to go there and be new.
I think you mean that he wrote 400 pages on the changes in the Mass, occurring over nearly 2000 years? Not that 400 pages from the original Mass were altered.
I left TLM in 2014 or 2015. Would love to go back. Genuinely. Specifically, where I live, it was politically charged in an extremely unhelpful way. Didn’t agree with TC, but when it was issued 6 years after I left…my first instinct was that maybe a break would be good. I want a good liturgy, but we somehow divorced it from the greater theology. “Truth” too can become a sort of idol. It’s like we had to possess and protect something from Jesus. When in reality, the Mass is meant to guide us toward the transcendence & transformation Christ offers us when we receive him.
As for the book, he traces how different countries implemented different changes at different times. There was no such thing as a uniform way of saying the Mass until Tridentine attempted. But just as it was then, there continue to be many * and footnotes. Catholicism is remarkably adaptable to communicate theology throughout the centuries.
I think there are too many similarities between the Tridentine and the Eastern Rites to believe that they were not relatively unimportant differences. But also, this was organic development that took place over the course of 2000 years, which is sufficiently slow to ensure that the Tradition carried in the Mass is kept whole and entire with the changes. The slow pace of the changes is necessary; it allows any change to be balanced in another place. The Tradition is really the most important part, besides the Eucharist Itself... what you say about keeping the greater theology sounds like you are objecting to the traditionalists not being Traditionalist enough.
And the Tridentine Rite was supposed to continue coexisting with the Sarum, Braga, and many other Rites, including those specific to religious orders. The effective loss of that diverse expression of Tradition is very unfortunate. TC appears to be hardening that loss, rather than undoing it.
Choosing a parish requires balancing a number of different human needs, and liturgy isn't everything. I wish there were enough TLMs that you could find one without the politics. But it's not like TC discriminates between good and bad parishes, any more that NO parish closures do. There's just more NOs to chose from.
I don't think Truth can become an idol, seeing as Jesus is the Truth. But it's not hard to imagine peoples' opinions becoming an idol, or for the naturally good desire for truth to be corrupted and get into a purity spiral well beyond required Church teaching. There can be an over-correction, among those subjected to a repudiation of objective truth and objective morality, to treat everything as having one, and only one, objectively acceptable option. Some things are that narrow, most are not. I think Fr. Ripperger has talked about the need for trads to get really good at forgiveness, as that is the only way to be able to keep straight ourselves, with all the wrongness assailing us. Failure to forgive invariably results in either over-correction or under-correction.
The changes we have had in the Mass have been a mix of organic, imposed by rulers in their specific jurisdictions on the church, reactions to political and social splits. Some of the changes were reactions to enthusiasm or unenthusiastic for receiving the Eucharist. Some were practical (like the height a pro at must hold the chalice at consecration) for the people in the back to see. Few changes, if any, happened universally in less than a century. Typically changes have been implemented country by country. Resistance to change had always been a theme in our faith (rightfully so) and before mass media it was easy to sustain.
I absolutely love TLM. I’ve never once heard a convo about it in USA be totally honest. It’s like we’re trying to sell people on it. The fact that changes to the Mass have happened both organically and by force over the centuries is very openly discussed as soon as you’re not in an English speaking country. And no one feels threatened by that. It’s just the truth.
I'm not sure "organically" and "by force" are mutually exclusive, assuming that "by force" you mean bishops or the Pope said that we shall do this thing. The point of organic development of the liturgy, at least for me, is not that it is grassroots (as you said, it often isn't), but that it occur slowly and gradually (country by country is good, for example, particularly in Europe where the countries are small), so that there is plenty of time to see the results and back off if necessary, to get feedback from all levels of the Church, to allow the generation that sees the change and the one that grows up with it to move into bishoprics and oppose it, if so inclined. The "few changes, if any, happened universally in less than a century" is important. I recall at least one instance where a Pope rolled out a major change to the breviary, and that got rolled back due to... strenuous objections, and buried in the sands of time. It's not that things have to start in a particular place, but rather that changes should be gradual enough that the whole Church can feasibly make their objections known and felt. Mass media makes everyone feel we can do things quicker, and therefore that we should.
The most forcible change to the Mass that I know of was the effective ending of the Sarum Rite due to England making it illegal. But that wasn't exactly done by a Catholic.
In English-speaking countries, people are subjected to more of the internet discussions where one of the favorite "gotchas" aimed at trads is that the Tridentine Rite is just as much an imposed, committee-created Mass as the Novus Ordo is. Which is absolute nonsense, but responding to it often results in inaccuracies in the other direction.
I classify myself as Reform of the Reform light. There is nothing wrong with attending the older form, but I do think encouraging lay participation, greater use of the vernacular, some simplification in the rubrics/calendar and an expanded lectionary were all praiseworthy and should be the norm. I do wonder though if the reformers got a little carried away with cutting things out. And more emphasis should have been placed on returning to the patristic sources vs updating to fit the modern era. That said God allowed the reforms to happen.
And only God though can tell what will happen in the future. What He wills, will be.
Reform of the reform is the road the Church will end up on I believe. Seems like the most practicable solution for a lot of the liturgical disunity occurring in the Church right now.
I find myself in a similar “faction” of the Liturgy Wars. One of the more frustrating things for me is that with TC, the Pope said that we should focus on beautifying the Novus Ordo and then bishops and Roche have continued to crack down on “accretions” like ad orientem, receiving Holy Communion kneeling, and in some places discouraging the use of Latin (contrary to Roche’s words). I personally think TC went too far but it further seems that TC did not just ban the Tridentine rite but was meant to also ossify the Novus Ordo. Which the Pope can do but that should have been clearer. Instead it appears the whole bit about making the Novus Ordo more reverent was a gambit to get reform of the reform folks to look at TC in the most charitable light.
Realistically more permissions need to be given for Tridentine Rite to be celebrated because it seems the desire for it has not lessened (Maybe increased) in my area.
Agreed. If they would just put the altar rails back, 90% of my discomfort with the ordinary form would dissolve. I don't understand the absolute loathing that certain prelates seem to have for a nice altar rail.
During Covid, my parish went to a communion distribution system in which we all remained socially- distanced in our pews (alternating pews were cordoned off) and the EMHCs passed thru the unused pews administering individually. Everyone received kneeling because it was the most obvious position - you were already kneeling from the Elevation so why would you change it? I loved it so much, and it seemed like everyone else did too.
I'm honestly surprised that Roche and Grillo talk about Latin as if that's what the devotees of the Tridentine mass are drawn to. Grillo's statement in particular seems almost willfully incurious. What's wrong with all these dumb trads, we all know Latin is what they care about, so why don't they do the Novus Ordo in Latin? A paradox that, if he bothered to unpack it, would quickly point to the real substance of the matter: that the Novus Ordo is NOT just the Tridentine mass translated into the vernacular! When Agatha Christie and the others wrote defending the cultural value of the old mass it wasn't just because they were interested in preserving Latin as a (barely) spoken language
Daniel and I commented at almost the same moment and he has a more thorough explanation of this.
It would be good to do a survey, but I would bet a significant number of Latin mass goers would be readier to accept their mass switching to the Tridentine rite in the vernacular (something like the 1965 missal) than to the Novus Ordo in Latin
With the caveat that a significant number of Latin mass goers do not trust the Vatican or USCCB translators any further than we can throw them, yes, the Tridentine Latin Mass in the vernacular would be superior to the NO in Latin. I'm comfortable with the Latin and disinclined to change, but I'd much prefer that change.
What i find striking is the 3 voices saying TC was here to say didn't even try to interact with the evidence, they just simply said "nothing to see here" or in the case of Ruff, admit trads are going to get what they want (freedom to say the TLM) but insist this isn't a contradiction.
Shaw and DiPippio have positions you can disagree with, but are actually reading, not wishcasting
One of the ironies of Vatican II has been that a pastoral council has been turned into an ideological event.
The bishops gathered together to discuss the best ways for the Church to evangelize to a changing world and too often we get: "Vatican II, no matter who has to suffer!"
The implementation of the new mass has caused great wounds and scandal to some people, who are often then abused verbally, accused of schism, etc., unless they accept their treatment with the same equanimity which, for example, St Therese of Lisieux demonstrated during her years at the Carmelite monastery.
There are deep wounds over this issue, and unfortunately TC has reopened them.
As a personal note, I have seen young people respond very strongly to the "old mass" in a very sincere and non-ideological way. I've met several young people who are pursuing vocations in communities dedicated to older rights. So from my perspective it is bearing fruit, and the whole anti-TLM argument has a very "get off my lawn" vibe.
It makes me think, as the saying goes, "The cruelty is the point." No one in their right mind thinks insulting people and taking away something they love is a good way to get those people to agree with you.
Well, on the flip side, it *is* an Ecumenical Council, so it has to be treated with such weight. Saint Paul VI’s comment that it “was a pastoral council” seemed more of a passing comment than a clear point of how to interpret the Council.
We cannot simply abandon or jettison Vatican II “because it was ‘pastoral council’ but turned out as a failed experiment” as some have argued over the past years.
So, we really do need to reckon with the permanence of the Council. Thankfully, by the close of Benedict’s pontificate, the Church had developed an authoritative interpretation of the Council. +Francis sadly seems to be upending this, but he will pass soon and I believe that Rome will return to reaffirming Paul VI’s/JPII’s/Benedict’s authoritative interpretation.
It wasn't a comment, it was part of the document finalizing the Council. It also isn't a phrase without meaning. A doctrinal Council defines a doctrine that was not defined before. Vatican 2 does not do this. A disciplinary Council makes law for the Church that must be obeyed. Vatican 2 does not do this either. "Pastoral Council" is simply accurate.
Disciplinary Councils can have their rules reversed or removed later. For example, despite the Jerusalem Council in Acts ruling that Christians must abstain from blood and strangled animals, we no longer have this rule. Pastoral Councils, similarly, are not giving perpetual advice. If what they say isn't doctrine before the Council, it isn't doctrine after the Council either. If it wasn't unchangeable before the Council, it isn't unchangeable after it either. So we *actually* need to reckon with the IMpermanence of the Council. The historical fact will always exist, but the applicability will not.
The only permanent things in the Council were permanent before it, and this is why Pope Benedict was always going on about the hermaneutic of continuity.
Reading this thoughtful analysis of 'Traditionis custodes,' I'm reminded that our liturgical discussions often present false dichotomies. While I don't personally feel drawn to the 1962 Missal, I deeply value reverence and proper adherence to liturgical norms. What many of us seek isn't necessarily a return to pre-Vatican II forms, but rather the current Mass celebrated according to the GIRM with the reverence that befits the Eucharist—avoiding the casual experimentation that characterized some liturgies in the late 70s and 80s. Perhaps this middle path—embracing authentic reform while maintaining sacred reverence—offers a way forward that honors both the Council's intentions and our rich liturgical heritage. After all, how we worship shapes what we believe.
I have never seen someone lead a pledge of allegiance to the American flag by standing up and facing the crowd, but some Catholics act like it’s a grave injustice if a priest leads a prayer and then turns to the crucifix.
I think that alone illustrates how the action of “leading from the front” reflects (and therefore shapes) what we really believe, rather than just performing what we purport to believe.
I have never once felt “turned away from” by a priest leading the congregation in prayer with his face towards the cross, but I have very frequently felt “performed to” by priests basking in the limelight of the sanctuary for the “audience” of the congregation.
It’s not necessarily, from my perspective, inherently bad for priests to celebrate versus populum. But it sends the wrong message and it's certainly abused, whereas ad orientem sends the right message and I’ve personally never seen it “abused.”
Does ad orientum mean the entire mass, except for the homily, is done with the priest facing east? Or is it just for certain prayers as you mention here? I attended one latin mass, and it felt more like a stage show, where i was more of an observer than a participant. Kind of similar to Buddhist services Ive witnessed in Japan, or a Hindu wedding i attended. I ask, because your analogy to the pledge of allegiance makes sense to me (it would be strange to look at me, and not the flag, while saying it) but thats not an entire ceremony.
No certain parts are toward people and others facing Christ in the liturgical east , not just the homily. It actually has a much more natural feel to it, bc the leading from the front explanation is super accurate. After getting used to it and going back to facing us, I found facing more jarring bc it was like “why is he looking at us now he’s talking to God” 🙃
As LinaMGM said, the ad orientem moments in the mass are always specifically prayers and rites directed towards God, so it’s never the whole mass, although it certainly is large chunks of it.
I actually think the “stage show” effect that some people experience during the TLM is a question separate but related to ad orientem. Which is to say, definitely the cumulative effect of various rubrics (hand position during prayers, small processions through the sanctuary, handling of vessels, small bows between ministers and servers, etc) can in fact start to feel, as you say, like some kind of foreign rite. (I’d hesitate to say “Buddhist” lol, but I see what you mean.)
I think there’s room to complain about that “performative” aspect of the TLM, but I also think ad orientem is only a minor component of that. I also personally like the heavily rubrical style of celebration at the TLM, because most priests who cultivate that do so deliberately out of a spirit of humility and removing “personality” from the celebration.
I’m sure we’ve all known priests who rather boisterously like to, say, annotate parts of what they’re doing (“now I’m going to stand and proclaim this sequence that’s been translated from an ancient Latin hymn”) or sweep ceremoniously through the sanctuary with their chasuble, or playfully sprinkle a good friend extra hard with holy water during a renewal of baptismal vows rite during a liturgy, or invite everyone to “extend your hands with me as we offer a blessing to” some group of people.
The intense rubricism of the TLM is a deliberate choice by sacred ministers to avoid any suggestion that what they are doing reflects their own choices, their personality, or making themselves the center of attention. It may seem cold and performative, and frankly I can see why it would be off-putting for people who are accustomed to the contemporary style of celebrants who try to actively imbue the liturgy with their “preferences,” but strictly speaking the rubricism is a different question from ad orientem worship alone, which I’ve seen at many “contemporary” style celebrations of mass without any awkwardness.
You don't participate in the Mass by having someone else pray in your general direction, you participate by joining in the prayer.
The entire Mass is a prayer, and therefore the entire Mass is analogous to the pledge of allegiance. Bit longer, yes, but still the same idea.
I remember in college, one of the differences between liberal arts classes and physics classes were that the liberal arts professors generally faced us through the entire class: they were giving us what was in their minds and what they thought. The physics professors might spend almost the entire class facing the blackboard, because they were showing us the information and processes, and their focus was on that information. I sit next to people I tutor so we can look at the work together. Turning to face the important thing is helpful in getting people to pay attention to the important thing.
Frankly, it's stage shows that tend to put the most emphasis on the performers facing the audience. Groups that are doing something face the thing they are doing.
What are we doing at Mass, offering a sacrifice with the priest or receiving something from him ("the priest" here referring not just to the guy in the vestments but also to the Divine Priest at every Mass)? Both, obviously. But versus populum almost completely obscures the first of those two actions. Yes, Christ invites us to receive his Body and Blood. He also invites us to join our sacrifice to his one sacrifice on the cross. It's amazing to me how many Catholics don't even know about the sacrifice we perform. To many, it's all about getting our Communion. I blame versus populum for that.
Alternatively (really simultaneously) it is also a sacred banquet. So much of the ad orientum vs. versus populum debate is just about the relative importance of the holy sacrifice vs. sacred banquet aspects of the Mass.
Those are interesting points. The moment at which I find ad orientem jarring is at the consecration, when, through the priest in persona Christi, I hear Jesus say, “Take this, all of you, and eat of it,….” It seems strange that he is speaking to us but facing away from us.
So Christ gives Himself to us, then we offer both His sacrifice and ours back to the Father. Wherever the priest is physically facing, it seems that in a deeper sense, Christ does turn to us in self-giving. This seems to be a prerequisite for our offering to the Father. How can we offer anything if Christ has not first given Himself to us?
Would the priest’s turning to the “liturgical east” help us to see that Christ is leading us in offering all back to the Father? I’ll give that some thought, because I agree with you that many of the faithful seem unaware of the sacrifice we can offer and need to offer.
I think this may be an illustrative point of why ad orientem - and conversely versus populum - is such a potent symbol.
I wouldn't say that the words of institution are words spoken to us (the congregation). The eucharistic prayer as the most solemn and sacred of the prayers of the liturgy is offered to the Father.
Yet, you often see priests celebrating versus populum treat them as such, whether intentionally or not, by making deliberate eye contact, looking around, etc. Obviously, a priest celebrating ad orientem simply cannot do that even if he wanted to.
Like Nic V, below, I don't think of the words of institution as the moment when Christ gives himself to us. Those words are part of the entire consecration prayer addressed to the Father. To my mind, Christ gives himself to us when the priest turns to say, "Behold the Lamb of God. . . Blessed are those who are called to the supper of the Lamb." At this moment, the risen Christ emerges from the tomb (for we receive the risen Christ in Communion) before us and we respond--not to the human priest, but to the Lord--with "Lord, I am not worthy . . . ."
The fact that Ivereigh still touts the claim that TC was, "in response to a widespread call by bishops above all in the U.S. and France" is laughable. The majority of U.S. Bishops never got the request from the Vatican nor were truly notified of it to make commentary, as many bishops have stated. It came from a small number of prelates who already had an agenda.
In reality, Roche's interview was, above all, a careerist move in preparation for the next Conclave, which Roche clearly doesn't think the Francis loyalists stand a chance in & he's just trying to save his own skin under the next guy. Or he's trying to present himself now as a moderate acting under orders to try and make a run for the Chair of St. Peter himself.
100% - and if all of the Bishops in the US were as concerned about their 1 or maybe 2 trad parishes being "schismatic" then we would have seen the survey from the Vatican a few years back regarding TLM communities. There has never been mention of the results of those surveys, and I have a feeling I know why!
I am convinced that Roche thinks he is papabile. In his own mind he sees himself dressed in white waving on the loggia, so best just smooth over first impressions with people who might think he is a crackpot.
It's incredible how complete idiots like Professor Andrea Grilo (who also spreads heresies) and Mr. Austen have become influential figures in recent years.
Grillo's nonsense comes from one simple error. The inability to recognize that Vatican II and the concillium were two different things that occurred at different times.
In the line of others who are self-identifying - I consider myself a "Tradservative". I mostly attend the TLM, but often attend daily masses in the new rite. I incorporate aspects of pre- and post-Vatican II piety and customs because, frankly, there's good stuff on both sides of that divide.
On a compeltely face-value read, there is some intellectual dishonestly coming from the progressives and some wishful thinking coming from the right.
While I think the use of Latin is important, I do not believe it is the language that is the main point of contention. Anyone who has watched the liturgy wars and who actually believes that the main differences between those defending the use of the TLM and those who insist on its restriction hasn't actually read the real intellectual back-and-forth between the two sides. For those claiming that people should just have a Latin Novus Ordo, celebrated ad orientem, well, there are bishops that are trying to ban those too. Yet I don't hear them piping up and defending the Latin, ad orientem Novus Ordo. I'll bet if you asked an average TLM attendee if you had to choose between the 1970 Missal in Latin or the 1962 Missal in the vernacular, they'd choose the latter. Acting like it's just about Latin shows either REMARKABLE ignorance of their interlocutors' arguments, or just intellectual dishonesty in an attempted strawman (which I suspect is more likely)
However, I just don't buy the "there's a shift coming from the Vatican" talk. Roche may be using more civil language, but his dislike of the TLM is noted from before Francis under Llovara and Sarah. Perhaps he's realized that the angry, spittle-ridden tirades that we see from Grillo are unmoving. In either case, I just don't see a shift. TLM's are still being shut down for now discernable reason and at the direct order of the Holy See (so much for Vatican II's push for the authority of the diocesan bishop), established community are being shut down, communities that offer both forms of the Roman Rite are being ripped apart. When those things stop happening, I'll be willing to believe maybe there's a shift.
Certainly an interesting article, but I just don't buy that anything is happening here.
What post-Vatican 2 piety and customs are you referring to? I'm not trying to claim there aren't any I just saw your statement and realized I couldn't think of any that began after V2, despite being a cradle Catholic born after V2.
Just pre-conclave maneuvering. Team Francis 2.0 knows that TC was and is very unpopular—for multiple reasons. So they need to make is seem as though TC was, is, and will be more moderate. Might net their candidate a couple extra votes.
These guys prattle on about the voice of the faithful and synodality, but they will never, ever, admit that the liturgical reforms of the 70s were an utter failure and have zero connection to tradition. You can fight it all you want, but the old Mass won’t die.
I love Benedict, but the idea that there was a straight line between 1962 and 1969 is laughable.
Radically different calendar. Different collects, secrets, posts communions and antiphons. Different Eucharistic Canon (yes, even the Roman Canon was changed). Option after option.
I use the NO because that’s where most of the Church is at, and I don’t want to shove liturgical change down anyone’s throat, but I’m acutely aware that I’m using a diet liturgy for people who don’t have time to give to God.
Sir the fact that you’re saying people who prefer the ordinary form of the liturgy as promulgated by the Church and the previous popes since the Council are people who have no time for the Lord is …. Frankly it’s part of the problem.
Hopefully I’m misunderstanding your wording bc as it reads, it’s incredibly patronizing and gives the exact superiority uncharitable tone that this article says is associated with EF communities.
The modernists (Grillo, Roche, etc) TOTALLY misunderstand the desire for the traditional Mass...it's not just Latin!!! (they speak as if tradition loving Catholics should be content with a tv mega-church preacher's Sunday service....just as long as he speaks it in Latin...absurd!)
Thank you for this super thoughtful and factual reporting, I really appreciated having both side laid out.
I’m team Ordinary Form at maximum rubrics/GIRM volume which includes as much latin and chant as you can manage but I’m just wondering where His Eminence lives that he thinks “just do OF mass with the Latin” is so easy to find? Like every parish is doing this? Or even every other parish?
I understand many commenters here who prefer or only want the EF for the whole church are pointing out that the Latin preference is an oversimplification of the appeal of the EF and am not disagreeing, but where on earth are these Latin tastic masses in the OF happening at least in these here United States? 😆
My parish in Maryland has a beautifu, reverent, all the antiphons and incense liturgy and definitely mixes in the Latin and chant (and was doing ad orientem before TC and the ADW Cardinal banned it in ANY mass) but it’s diamond in the rough not a dime a dozen. I’ve lived in multiple dioceses on multiple coasts and ….. this isn’t what people find on their corner parish.
So that comment just felt disingenuous unless he genuinely thinks most masses in most parishes look like the one he celebrates using Latin. Daily? And if he does think that, how can he make that a reality bc it would certainly be nice!
Or even *any* parish within a 2 hour drive for >50% of the Catholic population?
It's either disingenuous or ignorant, yes. And given he's been contributing a lot to legislation on the subject, I wouldn't call that ignorance excusable.
"For very good reasons, the Church, through conciliar legislation, decided to move away from what had become an overly elaborate form of celebrating the Mass.”
A low EF Mass is less elaborate than a good many OF Masses. To the extent there is any ornate-ness in the liturgy - well, are we or are we not celebrating our Lord and Saviour and preparing our souls for receiving Him?
“It’s too lacey and ornate.”
“Masses took 15 minutes.”
Same guy.
The irony is the Roman Liturgy has always been characterized by its relative linear structure and sparseness in comparison to other rites. The continued hand wringing over structure and "ornateness" shows a lack of historical understanding - and of human nature to boot.
Noble simplicity =/= Banality
Funny how those who ruthlessly want to suppress the traditional mass and sacraments all seem to agree that Roche said nothing, when this article does a great job of pointing out how he very obviously did. They are clearly in denial and defense mode. The question is why Roche said what he did.
Thanks for the summary! Two cranky comments:
1. Nobody cares about the Mass in Latin. Aside from a quip about Greek, that's not the point of the TLM at all. "Latin" is shorthand.
2. My personal experience has been that Latin Masses (I mean 1962-Missal Masses obviously, not Masses celebrated in Latin) work very well in a parish setting.
1, longer form: The Novus Ordo offered in Latin is the worst of both worlds---Latin which is sometimes inelegant as well as less accessible, and a slap in the face reminder of how many other differences we're still deprived of experiencing. Latin on the Novus Ordo, I daresay, is lipstick on a pig. Not that I think the Novus Ordo is a pig, but it feels much more porcine when said in Latin. When I hear Latin I expect prayers at the foot of the altar, ad orientem, a silent canon, a gradual, a last gospel, the triple "non sum dignus", an explosion of signs of the cross throughout the elevation, bells being rung at all opportunities, permission to sit for the longer sung ordinaries, and a blessing at Communion ("*may* the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ *preserve* your soul into eternal life") rather than a (very terse!) proclamation of what It is ("the Body of Christ", not even "Our Lord Jesus Christ"). Just reading the Novus Ordo in Latin gives me exactly none of those things, and introducing most of them would require violating rubrics---something the priests who celebrate the old rite would be particularly unwilling to do. (I've been privileged to recite the prayers at the foot of the altar quietly while processing to a private NO Mass once, and it's possible though extremely uncommon to sing the gradual in place of the responsorial psalm at an OF Mass as well. Ad orientem is of course also possible, though apparently it's a politically dangerous act these days. I believe the other things I listed would all be explicitly illicit in the NO.)
2, longer form: When you have religious orders or devoted groups saying them, I've found that there can be a lot of opulence and stand-offishness to them. Often, though not always, in the parish setting it feels much more integrated, and much humbler---not only by dint of not having the same forces available that dedicated priestly socities have, but even by desire. I've served for a Requiem Mass where the priests were literally tittering happily about the Belgian vestments prior, and they were making bad puns prior to the Mass because they were so happy. Then they hung around after the Mass like parish priests normally do. I haven't often seen that level of availability from non-diocesan priests offering TLMs. And those same priests have generally offered the Novus Ordo Mass in a way which, while reverent, is hardly "cryptotraditionalist" or whatever nasty words you want to invent---simply according to [a traditional, hermeneutic-of-continuity-based reading of] the Second Vatican Council and the GIRM. I've certainly enjoyed Latin (again, Tridentine/Traditional Latin, just in case anyone is still confused) Masses offered by both diocesan priests who celebrate both rites, and religious priests who only celebrate the old rite. But I have seen no evidence that diocesan-integrated Latin Masses can't be, or aren't usually, done well.
I'm not sure I agree with you about Latin Novus Ordo. Let me stipulate that I prefer the EF as a starting point, but in terms of celebrations of the new Mass in Latin my experience has been positive. I like the idea of Latin as a sort of liturgical language, a la Hebrew in Jewish services. Then again, my main experience with Latin Novus Ordo Masses were beautifully celebrated and chanted Masses at St. Matthew's Cathedral in DC. Also, that's what got me interested in then attending the EF. I think of the Latin NO as a sort of a gateway drug to the EF.
I otherwise agree with your second observation fully. One thing I'll add as a bit of a non sequitur but which has been something regularly on my mind: if the aim of the reforms was to make the Mass less priest-centric, the actual celebration of the NO is in fact MORE priest-centric, or at least it is more changeable to the disposition and character of the celebrant.
Very well said. It annoys me how many of the people who are in favor of restrictions on the TLM seem to have a very surface level understanding of why people prefer the TLM over the NO, or think that it is primarily about the use of Latin.
I do think that *some* reforms of the NO were positive, such as the people responding instead of only the servers, the reform of the lectionary (although that has its own drawbacks), and readings in the vernacular.
For what it's worth, the mass that I attend (St. Agnes in St. Paul, MN) is a NO celebrated very traditionally - ad orientem, Latin prayers, chanted introit/gradual/alleluia/communion, people sit for the Kyrie/Gloria/Credo sung by the choir w/ orchestra, most of the canon is prayed quietly during the Sanctus aside from the words of consecration, post-consecration Benedictus, communion using the altar rail, etc. Unlike many "reform of the reform" parishes, they never stopped doing those things with the introduction of the 1969 missal. I feel like they have achieved a good compromise in preserving tradition while implementing the reforms as intended by the council. But on the other hand some of the changes and omissions in the NO feel even more apparent, such as the offertory, introductory rites and post-communion prayers.
No, no, no. The Novus Ordo in Latin is not the worst of all worlds. For a start it is remarkably good at banishing guitars, so it has at least an antiseptic effect.
See my comment below! (Which was written before i saw this)
“Latin on the Novus Ordo, I daresay, is lipstick on a pig.”
Isn’t this backwards? Each Roman Missal has been promulgated in Latin. The 1970 missal and subsequent editions were then translated into vernacular tongues, but Latin remains the language of the, well, Latin Rite. It’s not an add-on in any way.
Fair enough. "Lipstick on a pig" was a bit harsh, and in a general sense I'll retract that.
I do think that the NO Mass was never intended to be said *entirely* in Latin on a broad basis. If nothing else, Pope Francis is on record as saying that reading the readings in Latin is not encouraged. And I'm pretty sure Pope Paul VI spoke of the NO as being intended for the vernacular.
Singing *parts* of the NO Mass in Latin can be very pretty and uplifting!
I am fully with you on the fact that Novus Ordo in Latin is the worst possible application of the “reform of the reform.”
My fervent hope is that over the next generation, when the “Spirit of Vatican II” generation of bishops and priests hostile to the TLM have fully passed and even the more “progressive” leaning priests see it as just an expression of the Church’s diversity are in charge (as is my experience with any and every Catholic under about the age of 40), we’ll see a movement that says: “Hey, let’s formulate an ‘ideal’ version of the TLM”—with, for example, restored Holy Week rites that were reformed even before Vatican II—“and then go back to the principles of the council and start translating the TLM into vernacular and revising some of the rubrics and making a few adaptations to the calendar.”
TLM in vernacular, once it happens, will be about 5,000% more in line with what I think people are implicitly seeking than Mass of Paul VI in Latin, when they say they want reform of the reform. They just don’t know it because there’s no actual option for it at this point.
Practically every comment I've heard from TLMers (except dePippo's) included some version of groaning "It's not about the Latin!!!!"
Seriously, do people think we're a bunch of Latinists who just can't scratch the hic hoc haec itch any other way? It takes approximately 5 min. of watching a Tridentine Mass on youtube to find out that there are a lot of other changes. At this point those who suggest a Latin NO as a substitute either haven't had the time or inclination to think about it, or are simply intellectually lazy.
The TLM works great in a parish setting. That's the primary way it was celebrated, almost worldwide, for centuries. That's the primary way I've experienced it (FSSP is close enough). But I think what was meant, in claiming that it doesn't work well in parish settings, is that if you put the TLM and the NO in the same parish, than the liturgical wars may go from cold to hot. Not that they have to, not that they often do (outside my experience), but if it's going to get bad, that's where it'll get bad. Obviously this can also be solved by allowing TLM-only parishes, particularly in high-population areas. Or by, radical idea, charity.
The ars celebrandi is a remarkably important lost element of our faith. But your comments don’t touch on any of the deeper elements of Eucharistic theology. I want to return to TLM, but the obsession with the external forms. It risks becoming surface level. The Lord arrives from heaven at the hands of the priest, and comes down the steps of the altar to meet his people at the rail. To touch and transform our lives to become more like him. But the external forms (and keep in mind at one point even the Tridentine was contemporary) as beautiful as they are have to point to something more real. It’s becoming just a contemporary form of politics and boundary marking in the same way the East/West had a sort of social schism many years before they found the theological reasons to confirm why the Church had to split.
As far as I am aware, the biggest single change to the Tridentine Rite was instituted by St. Gregory the Great, adding a large number of propers and changing the time for one or two things.
I don't think there would have been a social schism without TC. They shut down a lot of TLMs that were being celebrated at diocesan parishes, alongside NO Masses, so the two groups were probably mostly content to exist side by side, as long as they were allowed to. The discontentedness on the individual and local level will now be harder to work out, as segregation has been implemented.
This is something of an argument for re-instituting things like good catechesis, Friday abstinence, the Angelus, adoration, Eucharistic processions, and the daily rosary. These things can unify across liturgical distinctions, and they can do it at the lay or parish level.
My experience is that the homilies, Confession, retreats, and the general parish life are what counter the inclination to become surface level. Those who will not do things outside the Mass will be superficial regardless of where they go.
I’m all in favor of allowing TLM in parishes. I don’t think the communities where I experienced TLM necessarily had to become as politically charged and suspicious of outsiders as they did. Nor are we doomed to be that way in the future.
Good book recommendation. The Mass of the Roman Rite: its origins and development (I think published circa 1955) by Joseph Jungmann traces almost 400 pages of changes in the Latin Mass. It was not unified, and as it developed did so unequally and at different paces depending on what country you were in. Of course, theologically, the Mass is eternally the same everywhere and always has been.
It is certainly easier to avoid becoming suspicious of outsiders if there aren't any outsiders trying to shut you down. I think I've heard of some parishes in various Middle Eastern countries having guards at the doors and requiring someone to vouch for you if you're new. I'd hate to go there and be new.
I think you mean that he wrote 400 pages on the changes in the Mass, occurring over nearly 2000 years? Not that 400 pages from the original Mass were altered.
I left TLM in 2014 or 2015. Would love to go back. Genuinely. Specifically, where I live, it was politically charged in an extremely unhelpful way. Didn’t agree with TC, but when it was issued 6 years after I left…my first instinct was that maybe a break would be good. I want a good liturgy, but we somehow divorced it from the greater theology. “Truth” too can become a sort of idol. It’s like we had to possess and protect something from Jesus. When in reality, the Mass is meant to guide us toward the transcendence & transformation Christ offers us when we receive him.
As for the book, he traces how different countries implemented different changes at different times. There was no such thing as a uniform way of saying the Mass until Tridentine attempted. But just as it was then, there continue to be many * and footnotes. Catholicism is remarkably adaptable to communicate theology throughout the centuries.
I think there are too many similarities between the Tridentine and the Eastern Rites to believe that they were not relatively unimportant differences. But also, this was organic development that took place over the course of 2000 years, which is sufficiently slow to ensure that the Tradition carried in the Mass is kept whole and entire with the changes. The slow pace of the changes is necessary; it allows any change to be balanced in another place. The Tradition is really the most important part, besides the Eucharist Itself... what you say about keeping the greater theology sounds like you are objecting to the traditionalists not being Traditionalist enough.
And the Tridentine Rite was supposed to continue coexisting with the Sarum, Braga, and many other Rites, including those specific to religious orders. The effective loss of that diverse expression of Tradition is very unfortunate. TC appears to be hardening that loss, rather than undoing it.
Choosing a parish requires balancing a number of different human needs, and liturgy isn't everything. I wish there were enough TLMs that you could find one without the politics. But it's not like TC discriminates between good and bad parishes, any more that NO parish closures do. There's just more NOs to chose from.
I don't think Truth can become an idol, seeing as Jesus is the Truth. But it's not hard to imagine peoples' opinions becoming an idol, or for the naturally good desire for truth to be corrupted and get into a purity spiral well beyond required Church teaching. There can be an over-correction, among those subjected to a repudiation of objective truth and objective morality, to treat everything as having one, and only one, objectively acceptable option. Some things are that narrow, most are not. I think Fr. Ripperger has talked about the need for trads to get really good at forgiveness, as that is the only way to be able to keep straight ourselves, with all the wrongness assailing us. Failure to forgive invariably results in either over-correction or under-correction.
The changes we have had in the Mass have been a mix of organic, imposed by rulers in their specific jurisdictions on the church, reactions to political and social splits. Some of the changes were reactions to enthusiasm or unenthusiastic for receiving the Eucharist. Some were practical (like the height a pro at must hold the chalice at consecration) for the people in the back to see. Few changes, if any, happened universally in less than a century. Typically changes have been implemented country by country. Resistance to change had always been a theme in our faith (rightfully so) and before mass media it was easy to sustain.
I absolutely love TLM. I’ve never once heard a convo about it in USA be totally honest. It’s like we’re trying to sell people on it. The fact that changes to the Mass have happened both organically and by force over the centuries is very openly discussed as soon as you’re not in an English speaking country. And no one feels threatened by that. It’s just the truth.
I'm not sure "organically" and "by force" are mutually exclusive, assuming that "by force" you mean bishops or the Pope said that we shall do this thing. The point of organic development of the liturgy, at least for me, is not that it is grassroots (as you said, it often isn't), but that it occur slowly and gradually (country by country is good, for example, particularly in Europe where the countries are small), so that there is plenty of time to see the results and back off if necessary, to get feedback from all levels of the Church, to allow the generation that sees the change and the one that grows up with it to move into bishoprics and oppose it, if so inclined. The "few changes, if any, happened universally in less than a century" is important. I recall at least one instance where a Pope rolled out a major change to the breviary, and that got rolled back due to... strenuous objections, and buried in the sands of time. It's not that things have to start in a particular place, but rather that changes should be gradual enough that the whole Church can feasibly make their objections known and felt. Mass media makes everyone feel we can do things quicker, and therefore that we should.
The most forcible change to the Mass that I know of was the effective ending of the Sarum Rite due to England making it illegal. But that wasn't exactly done by a Catholic.
In English-speaking countries, people are subjected to more of the internet discussions where one of the favorite "gotchas" aimed at trads is that the Tridentine Rite is just as much an imposed, committee-created Mass as the Novus Ordo is. Which is absolute nonsense, but responding to it often results in inaccuracies in the other direction.
I classify myself as Reform of the Reform light. There is nothing wrong with attending the older form, but I do think encouraging lay participation, greater use of the vernacular, some simplification in the rubrics/calendar and an expanded lectionary were all praiseworthy and should be the norm. I do wonder though if the reformers got a little carried away with cutting things out. And more emphasis should have been placed on returning to the patristic sources vs updating to fit the modern era. That said God allowed the reforms to happen.
And only God though can tell what will happen in the future. What He wills, will be.
Reform of the reform is the road the Church will end up on I believe. Seems like the most practicable solution for a lot of the liturgical disunity occurring in the Church right now.
I find myself in a similar “faction” of the Liturgy Wars. One of the more frustrating things for me is that with TC, the Pope said that we should focus on beautifying the Novus Ordo and then bishops and Roche have continued to crack down on “accretions” like ad orientem, receiving Holy Communion kneeling, and in some places discouraging the use of Latin (contrary to Roche’s words). I personally think TC went too far but it further seems that TC did not just ban the Tridentine rite but was meant to also ossify the Novus Ordo. Which the Pope can do but that should have been clearer. Instead it appears the whole bit about making the Novus Ordo more reverent was a gambit to get reform of the reform folks to look at TC in the most charitable light.
Realistically more permissions need to be given for Tridentine Rite to be celebrated because it seems the desire for it has not lessened (Maybe increased) in my area.
Agreed. If they would just put the altar rails back, 90% of my discomfort with the ordinary form would dissolve. I don't understand the absolute loathing that certain prelates seem to have for a nice altar rail.
During Covid, my parish went to a communion distribution system in which we all remained socially- distanced in our pews (alternating pews were cordoned off) and the EMHCs passed thru the unused pews administering individually. Everyone received kneeling because it was the most obvious position - you were already kneeling from the Elevation so why would you change it? I loved it so much, and it seemed like everyone else did too.
I'm honestly surprised that Roche and Grillo talk about Latin as if that's what the devotees of the Tridentine mass are drawn to. Grillo's statement in particular seems almost willfully incurious. What's wrong with all these dumb trads, we all know Latin is what they care about, so why don't they do the Novus Ordo in Latin? A paradox that, if he bothered to unpack it, would quickly point to the real substance of the matter: that the Novus Ordo is NOT just the Tridentine mass translated into the vernacular! When Agatha Christie and the others wrote defending the cultural value of the old mass it wasn't just because they were interested in preserving Latin as a (barely) spoken language
Daniel and I commented at almost the same moment and he has a more thorough explanation of this.
It would be good to do a survey, but I would bet a significant number of Latin mass goers would be readier to accept their mass switching to the Tridentine rite in the vernacular (something like the 1965 missal) than to the Novus Ordo in Latin
With the caveat that a significant number of Latin mass goers do not trust the Vatican or USCCB translators any further than we can throw them, yes, the Tridentine Latin Mass in the vernacular would be superior to the NO in Latin. I'm comfortable with the Latin and disinclined to change, but I'd much prefer that change.
What i find striking is the 3 voices saying TC was here to say didn't even try to interact with the evidence, they just simply said "nothing to see here" or in the case of Ruff, admit trads are going to get what they want (freedom to say the TLM) but insist this isn't a contradiction.
Shaw and DiPippio have positions you can disagree with, but are actually reading, not wishcasting
One of the ironies of Vatican II has been that a pastoral council has been turned into an ideological event.
The bishops gathered together to discuss the best ways for the Church to evangelize to a changing world and too often we get: "Vatican II, no matter who has to suffer!"
The implementation of the new mass has caused great wounds and scandal to some people, who are often then abused verbally, accused of schism, etc., unless they accept their treatment with the same equanimity which, for example, St Therese of Lisieux demonstrated during her years at the Carmelite monastery.
There are deep wounds over this issue, and unfortunately TC has reopened them.
As a personal note, I have seen young people respond very strongly to the "old mass" in a very sincere and non-ideological way. I've met several young people who are pursuing vocations in communities dedicated to older rights. So from my perspective it is bearing fruit, and the whole anti-TLM argument has a very "get off my lawn" vibe.
It makes me think, as the saying goes, "The cruelty is the point." No one in their right mind thinks insulting people and taking away something they love is a good way to get those people to agree with you.
Well, on the flip side, it *is* an Ecumenical Council, so it has to be treated with such weight. Saint Paul VI’s comment that it “was a pastoral council” seemed more of a passing comment than a clear point of how to interpret the Council.
We cannot simply abandon or jettison Vatican II “because it was ‘pastoral council’ but turned out as a failed experiment” as some have argued over the past years.
So, we really do need to reckon with the permanence of the Council. Thankfully, by the close of Benedict’s pontificate, the Church had developed an authoritative interpretation of the Council. +Francis sadly seems to be upending this, but he will pass soon and I believe that Rome will return to reaffirming Paul VI’s/JPII’s/Benedict’s authoritative interpretation.
It wasn't a comment, it was part of the document finalizing the Council. It also isn't a phrase without meaning. A doctrinal Council defines a doctrine that was not defined before. Vatican 2 does not do this. A disciplinary Council makes law for the Church that must be obeyed. Vatican 2 does not do this either. "Pastoral Council" is simply accurate.
Disciplinary Councils can have their rules reversed or removed later. For example, despite the Jerusalem Council in Acts ruling that Christians must abstain from blood and strangled animals, we no longer have this rule. Pastoral Councils, similarly, are not giving perpetual advice. If what they say isn't doctrine before the Council, it isn't doctrine after the Council either. If it wasn't unchangeable before the Council, it isn't unchangeable after it either. So we *actually* need to reckon with the IMpermanence of the Council. The historical fact will always exist, but the applicability will not.
The only permanent things in the Council were permanent before it, and this is why Pope Benedict was always going on about the hermaneutic of continuity.
Reading this thoughtful analysis of 'Traditionis custodes,' I'm reminded that our liturgical discussions often present false dichotomies. While I don't personally feel drawn to the 1962 Missal, I deeply value reverence and proper adherence to liturgical norms. What many of us seek isn't necessarily a return to pre-Vatican II forms, but rather the current Mass celebrated according to the GIRM with the reverence that befits the Eucharist—avoiding the casual experimentation that characterized some liturgies in the late 70s and 80s. Perhaps this middle path—embracing authentic reform while maintaining sacred reverence—offers a way forward that honors both the Council's intentions and our rich liturgical heritage. After all, how we worship shapes what we believe.
Yes, but ad orientem has to return. Talk about shaping what we believe!
Could you please explain how you see ad orientem, or versus populum, shaping what we believe?
I’m not who you asked, but here’s my perspective.
I have never seen someone lead a pledge of allegiance to the American flag by standing up and facing the crowd, but some Catholics act like it’s a grave injustice if a priest leads a prayer and then turns to the crucifix.
I think that alone illustrates how the action of “leading from the front” reflects (and therefore shapes) what we really believe, rather than just performing what we purport to believe.
I have never once felt “turned away from” by a priest leading the congregation in prayer with his face towards the cross, but I have very frequently felt “performed to” by priests basking in the limelight of the sanctuary for the “audience” of the congregation.
It’s not necessarily, from my perspective, inherently bad for priests to celebrate versus populum. But it sends the wrong message and it's certainly abused, whereas ad orientem sends the right message and I’ve personally never seen it “abused.”
Does ad orientum mean the entire mass, except for the homily, is done with the priest facing east? Or is it just for certain prayers as you mention here? I attended one latin mass, and it felt more like a stage show, where i was more of an observer than a participant. Kind of similar to Buddhist services Ive witnessed in Japan, or a Hindu wedding i attended. I ask, because your analogy to the pledge of allegiance makes sense to me (it would be strange to look at me, and not the flag, while saying it) but thats not an entire ceremony.
No certain parts are toward people and others facing Christ in the liturgical east , not just the homily. It actually has a much more natural feel to it, bc the leading from the front explanation is super accurate. After getting used to it and going back to facing us, I found facing more jarring bc it was like “why is he looking at us now he’s talking to God” 🙃
As LinaMGM said, the ad orientem moments in the mass are always specifically prayers and rites directed towards God, so it’s never the whole mass, although it certainly is large chunks of it.
I actually think the “stage show” effect that some people experience during the TLM is a question separate but related to ad orientem. Which is to say, definitely the cumulative effect of various rubrics (hand position during prayers, small processions through the sanctuary, handling of vessels, small bows between ministers and servers, etc) can in fact start to feel, as you say, like some kind of foreign rite. (I’d hesitate to say “Buddhist” lol, but I see what you mean.)
I think there’s room to complain about that “performative” aspect of the TLM, but I also think ad orientem is only a minor component of that. I also personally like the heavily rubrical style of celebration at the TLM, because most priests who cultivate that do so deliberately out of a spirit of humility and removing “personality” from the celebration.
I’m sure we’ve all known priests who rather boisterously like to, say, annotate parts of what they’re doing (“now I’m going to stand and proclaim this sequence that’s been translated from an ancient Latin hymn”) or sweep ceremoniously through the sanctuary with their chasuble, or playfully sprinkle a good friend extra hard with holy water during a renewal of baptismal vows rite during a liturgy, or invite everyone to “extend your hands with me as we offer a blessing to” some group of people.
The intense rubricism of the TLM is a deliberate choice by sacred ministers to avoid any suggestion that what they are doing reflects their own choices, their personality, or making themselves the center of attention. It may seem cold and performative, and frankly I can see why it would be off-putting for people who are accustomed to the contemporary style of celebrants who try to actively imbue the liturgy with their “preferences,” but strictly speaking the rubricism is a different question from ad orientem worship alone, which I’ve seen at many “contemporary” style celebrations of mass without any awkwardness.
You don't participate in the Mass by having someone else pray in your general direction, you participate by joining in the prayer.
The entire Mass is a prayer, and therefore the entire Mass is analogous to the pledge of allegiance. Bit longer, yes, but still the same idea.
I remember in college, one of the differences between liberal arts classes and physics classes were that the liberal arts professors generally faced us through the entire class: they were giving us what was in their minds and what they thought. The physics professors might spend almost the entire class facing the blackboard, because they were showing us the information and processes, and their focus was on that information. I sit next to people I tutor so we can look at the work together. Turning to face the important thing is helpful in getting people to pay attention to the important thing.
Frankly, it's stage shows that tend to put the most emphasis on the performers facing the audience. Groups that are doing something face the thing they are doing.
What are we doing at Mass, offering a sacrifice with the priest or receiving something from him ("the priest" here referring not just to the guy in the vestments but also to the Divine Priest at every Mass)? Both, obviously. But versus populum almost completely obscures the first of those two actions. Yes, Christ invites us to receive his Body and Blood. He also invites us to join our sacrifice to his one sacrifice on the cross. It's amazing to me how many Catholics don't even know about the sacrifice we perform. To many, it's all about getting our Communion. I blame versus populum for that.
Alternatively (really simultaneously) it is also a sacred banquet. So much of the ad orientum vs. versus populum debate is just about the relative importance of the holy sacrifice vs. sacred banquet aspects of the Mass.
Those are interesting points. The moment at which I find ad orientem jarring is at the consecration, when, through the priest in persona Christi, I hear Jesus say, “Take this, all of you, and eat of it,….” It seems strange that he is speaking to us but facing away from us.
So Christ gives Himself to us, then we offer both His sacrifice and ours back to the Father. Wherever the priest is physically facing, it seems that in a deeper sense, Christ does turn to us in self-giving. This seems to be a prerequisite for our offering to the Father. How can we offer anything if Christ has not first given Himself to us?
Would the priest’s turning to the “liturgical east” help us to see that Christ is leading us in offering all back to the Father? I’ll give that some thought, because I agree with you that many of the faithful seem unaware of the sacrifice we can offer and need to offer.
I think this may be an illustrative point of why ad orientem - and conversely versus populum - is such a potent symbol.
I wouldn't say that the words of institution are words spoken to us (the congregation). The eucharistic prayer as the most solemn and sacred of the prayers of the liturgy is offered to the Father.
Yet, you often see priests celebrating versus populum treat them as such, whether intentionally or not, by making deliberate eye contact, looking around, etc. Obviously, a priest celebrating ad orientem simply cannot do that even if he wanted to.
Like Nic V, below, I don't think of the words of institution as the moment when Christ gives himself to us. Those words are part of the entire consecration prayer addressed to the Father. To my mind, Christ gives himself to us when the priest turns to say, "Behold the Lamb of God. . . Blessed are those who are called to the supper of the Lamb." At this moment, the risen Christ emerges from the tomb (for we receive the risen Christ in Communion) before us and we respond--not to the human priest, but to the Lord--with "Lord, I am not worthy . . . ."
The fact that Ivereigh still touts the claim that TC was, "in response to a widespread call by bishops above all in the U.S. and France" is laughable. The majority of U.S. Bishops never got the request from the Vatican nor were truly notified of it to make commentary, as many bishops have stated. It came from a small number of prelates who already had an agenda.
In reality, Roche's interview was, above all, a careerist move in preparation for the next Conclave, which Roche clearly doesn't think the Francis loyalists stand a chance in & he's just trying to save his own skin under the next guy. Or he's trying to present himself now as a moderate acting under orders to try and make a run for the Chair of St. Peter himself.
100% - and if all of the Bishops in the US were as concerned about their 1 or maybe 2 trad parishes being "schismatic" then we would have seen the survey from the Vatican a few years back regarding TLM communities. There has never been mention of the results of those surveys, and I have a feeling I know why!
Let’s see the box score: publish the survey! Anecdotal evidence points to American bishops as unopposed to TLM. Are the American bishops bellwether?
My own experience: the TLM conveys the sense that something is going on other than cosplay.
I am convinced that Roche thinks he is papabile. In his own mind he sees himself dressed in white waving on the loggia, so best just smooth over first impressions with people who might think he is a crackpot.
It's incredible how complete idiots like Professor Andrea Grilo (who also spreads heresies) and Mr. Austen have become influential figures in recent years.
Grillo's nonsense comes from one simple error. The inability to recognize that Vatican II and the concillium were two different things that occurred at different times.
In the line of others who are self-identifying - I consider myself a "Tradservative". I mostly attend the TLM, but often attend daily masses in the new rite. I incorporate aspects of pre- and post-Vatican II piety and customs because, frankly, there's good stuff on both sides of that divide.
On a compeltely face-value read, there is some intellectual dishonestly coming from the progressives and some wishful thinking coming from the right.
While I think the use of Latin is important, I do not believe it is the language that is the main point of contention. Anyone who has watched the liturgy wars and who actually believes that the main differences between those defending the use of the TLM and those who insist on its restriction hasn't actually read the real intellectual back-and-forth between the two sides. For those claiming that people should just have a Latin Novus Ordo, celebrated ad orientem, well, there are bishops that are trying to ban those too. Yet I don't hear them piping up and defending the Latin, ad orientem Novus Ordo. I'll bet if you asked an average TLM attendee if you had to choose between the 1970 Missal in Latin or the 1962 Missal in the vernacular, they'd choose the latter. Acting like it's just about Latin shows either REMARKABLE ignorance of their interlocutors' arguments, or just intellectual dishonesty in an attempted strawman (which I suspect is more likely)
However, I just don't buy the "there's a shift coming from the Vatican" talk. Roche may be using more civil language, but his dislike of the TLM is noted from before Francis under Llovara and Sarah. Perhaps he's realized that the angry, spittle-ridden tirades that we see from Grillo are unmoving. In either case, I just don't see a shift. TLM's are still being shut down for now discernable reason and at the direct order of the Holy See (so much for Vatican II's push for the authority of the diocesan bishop), established community are being shut down, communities that offer both forms of the Roman Rite are being ripped apart. When those things stop happening, I'll be willing to believe maybe there's a shift.
Certainly an interesting article, but I just don't buy that anything is happening here.
What post-Vatican 2 piety and customs are you referring to? I'm not trying to claim there aren't any I just saw your statement and realized I couldn't think of any that began after V2, despite being a cradle Catholic born after V2.
Just pre-conclave maneuvering. Team Francis 2.0 knows that TC was and is very unpopular—for multiple reasons. So they need to make is seem as though TC was, is, and will be more moderate. Might net their candidate a couple extra votes.
These guys prattle on about the voice of the faithful and synodality, but they will never, ever, admit that the liturgical reforms of the 70s were an utter failure and have zero connection to tradition. You can fight it all you want, but the old Mass won’t die.
I love Benedict, but the idea that there was a straight line between 1962 and 1969 is laughable.
Radically different calendar. Different collects, secrets, posts communions and antiphons. Different Eucharistic Canon (yes, even the Roman Canon was changed). Option after option.
I use the NO because that’s where most of the Church is at, and I don’t want to shove liturgical change down anyone’s throat, but I’m acutely aware that I’m using a diet liturgy for people who don’t have time to give to God.
Sir the fact that you’re saying people who prefer the ordinary form of the liturgy as promulgated by the Church and the previous popes since the Council are people who have no time for the Lord is …. Frankly it’s part of the problem.
Hopefully I’m misunderstanding your wording bc as it reads, it’s incredibly patronizing and gives the exact superiority uncharitable tone that this article says is associated with EF communities.
I mean the liturgical experts who said “modern man” doesn’t have time for High Mass. EP II was specifically designed for brevity, not theology.
Ahhhh I’m very sorry then and do apologize.
I didn’t word my original comment well.
I will say I have received multiple complaints from priests and laity that my Masses take way too long. Why? I use the Roman Canon.
And it’s not even that long! 5-7 minutes maybe to pronounce and say with greatest love and charity?
I grew up in Boston. It’s 5 min.
Send them to a Mozarabic Rite... I think it takes 2 hours!
Exactly!
The modernists (Grillo, Roche, etc) TOTALLY misunderstand the desire for the traditional Mass...it's not just Latin!!! (they speak as if tradition loving Catholics should be content with a tv mega-church preacher's Sunday service....just as long as he speaks it in Latin...absurd!)
Thank you for this super thoughtful and factual reporting, I really appreciated having both side laid out.
I’m team Ordinary Form at maximum rubrics/GIRM volume which includes as much latin and chant as you can manage but I’m just wondering where His Eminence lives that he thinks “just do OF mass with the Latin” is so easy to find? Like every parish is doing this? Or even every other parish?
I understand many commenters here who prefer or only want the EF for the whole church are pointing out that the Latin preference is an oversimplification of the appeal of the EF and am not disagreeing, but where on earth are these Latin tastic masses in the OF happening at least in these here United States? 😆
My parish in Maryland has a beautifu, reverent, all the antiphons and incense liturgy and definitely mixes in the Latin and chant (and was doing ad orientem before TC and the ADW Cardinal banned it in ANY mass) but it’s diamond in the rough not a dime a dozen. I’ve lived in multiple dioceses on multiple coasts and ….. this isn’t what people find on their corner parish.
So that comment just felt disingenuous unless he genuinely thinks most masses in most parishes look like the one he celebrates using Latin. Daily? And if he does think that, how can he make that a reality bc it would certainly be nice!
Or even *any* parish within a 2 hour drive for >50% of the Catholic population?
It's either disingenuous or ignorant, yes. And given he's been contributing a lot to legislation on the subject, I wouldn't call that ignorance excusable.