A sorrowful swansong....
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    I don't think that the pre-Vatican II Mass needed serious reform in substance, but I do believe that it needed reform in surface. The ONE reform of substance that comes to my mind that would be a great improvement is the un-reforming of Pius XII's Holy Week (the Holy Week that John XXIII never used, so it is said), and returning to the old forms.

    The surface reforms that were sorely needed were an all-round de-Baroque-ification of the liturgy. Not in any kind or archaelogical way, but simply moving beyond the 18th Century ethos that was pickled in aspic -- in some ways, looking at pictures of liturgy in the 1940s, I'm shocked not to see the priests in wigs with tonsures cut out: everything else looks like the 1740s. Another much needed surface reform was the recovery of the authentic Gregorian chant, and the gradual (no pun intended) abandonment of Rossini Propers, and the often hideous Mass settings intended for amateurs choirs published in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries. But these are things that we all can agree on.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • Heath
    Posts: 966
    "subjective and a coincidence"

    I think this is the heart of it . . . I love the heavy-lifting that you did, but it's 100 percent incidental connections. I just think it would be super-easy (in the next reform) to swap that one out for something ....better. : )
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,415
    The best 'reform' of the Tridentine rite would have been simply to put it into English - a la the Anglican Missal. That's all - with a little tweak here and there.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,981
    No, thank you. Life is GOOD being a schola director at a TLM-only parish run by the FSSP! :)


    Then you have no idea how bad traditional masses were in most places before Vatican II.
    Thanked by 2M. Jackson Osborn Paul F. Ford
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,577
    If I were pope then I would say the Holy Week liturgies should be offered at the appropriate time. Lauds is Lauds .. Vespers is Vespers .. etc.

    And if Christmas Midnight Mass is such a popular big deal
    then it Must start at Midnight.
    And if Christmas starts at midnight then also the Easter Vigil starts at midnight.

    And nobody will ever again ask "what time is Midnight Mass"?

    (along with the most enjoyable springtime phone conversations)
    What time is Midnight Mass?
    You must mean the Easter Vigil .. it begins after dark .. so 9 pm.
    Thank you.
    (hang up)
    (start counting .. 5 4 3 2 1 .. ring)
    So tell me again what time does Midnight Mass start?
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,259
    "And if Christmas starts at midnight then also the Easter Vigil starts at midnight."

    ...it isn't a vigil at that point. Midnight Mass isn't a vigil, it's Christmas.
    Thanked by 4tomjaw CharlesW CHGiffen bhcordova
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,577
    As pope I am attempting to crush
    lets-do-easter-vigil-while-still-sunny-outside.
    Thanked by 1Richard Mix
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,782
    Holy Week liturgies should be offered at the appropriate time.

    Hmm appropriate time is that possible, Tenebrae at night? far better in the evening so we can attend. with this Maundy Thursday Mass needs to be in the afternoon at the latest. Should the Good Friday Liturgy be 12 or 3? could we have a break before Tenebrae...
    Christmas starts at midnight then also the Easter Vigil starts at midnight.

    The Vigil Mass of Christmas is said on the morning of Christmas Eve... The Easter Day Mass is said on Easter Sunday... Hmm perhaps the Easter Vigil should follow these rules and be said on Holy Saturday, and can we start Easter in the Sarum way, Christus Resurgens, Vespers and Matins etc. on the late afternoon / evening of Holy Saturday!

    Then you have no idea how bad traditional masses were in most SOME places before Vatican II.


    Corrected for you, but we have had this discussion elsewhere on this forum...

    MJO the Anglican Missal should be an option it is all very nice, although the only time I have been, we sang the Ordinary and Propers in Latin from the L.U. But I much prefer the Latin and we are THE Universal Church...

    pre-Vatican II Mass needed serious reform...


    If we look at Mass attendance, Ordinations etc. there did not appear to be much wrong before Vatican II after well the springtime nuclear winter is all to see around us. I will admit that the when these Catholic countries voted they appear to have left their brains and hearts in the church, and did not take them into the voting booth.

    I admit I do have a list of improvements... which I will post later.
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,415
    Then you have no idea...

    Well, that's one thing that Vatican II didn't change, isn't it, Charles?
    (Though it might be said that Vatican II made it even worse.)
    Bad or indifferent seems par for the course in Catholic liturgy.
    Good is an exception.
    Maybe not rare, but an exception to the rule.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,799
    "Could you tell me please on which day are the Thursday Matins?"
    Screen Shot 2017-05-04 at 12.10.43 AM.png
    956 x 470 - 112K
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,471
    Bad or indifferent seems par for the course in Catholic Latin liturgy.
    Been that way for a long time
    Ultimately Vladimir settled on Eastern Orthodox Christianity. In the churches of the Germans his emissaries saw no beauty; but at Constantinople, where the full festival ritual of the Byzantine Church was set in motion to impress them, they found their ideal: "We no longer knew whether we were in heaven or on earth," they reported
    NB by Latin I mean the tradition as widely practiced, not the language. And of course the papacy was riven by factional fighting among Roman noble families, with intermittent intervention by the (German) Holy Roman Emperor, and was not in a position to put on an equivalent show.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,981
    Then you have no idea how bad traditional masses were in MOST places before Vatican II.


    Corrected for you, but we have had this discussion elsewhere on this forum...


    Corrected it back for you. My memory, and I was there, is that liturgies were pretty good in the major churches and cathedrals. In the average parish, not so good. Rossini and 19th-early 20th century trash prevailed until the 1965 missal went into effect. Then they were replaced with even worse.

    (Though it might be said that Vatican II made it even worse.)


    It surely did. Amazing how the high-sounding intentions of that council quickly deteriorated in practice. In six months everything was overturned.

    Recently, I watched a good music program that was 19 years in the making be thrown out and undone in a one week time period. Building is long and hard, destroying takes very little time and effort.
    Thanked by 2M. Jackson Osborn Salieri
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    It surely did. Amazing how the high-sounding intentions of that council quickly deteriorated in practice. In six months everything was overturned.


    Alice von Hildebrand gave an interview where she pointed to the already increasing secularism on the part of clergy that caused the issues in the ancient Mass in the first place. It stands to reason that those same clergy that were still practicing after the Council continued to insert their secularism into the new Mass, only this time much of it was permitted.
    Thanked by 3CharlesW M. Jackson Osborn stulte
  • stulte
    Posts: 355
    Then you have no idea how bad traditional masses were in most places before Vatican II.


    Well, I have other musicians in my family who have told me all about how things were before V2. I also have my grandfather's Liber Usualis from when he was in the local diocesan seminary in the 1930s which includes (among other things) his notes on the church modes when he learned to chant. So, realistically, the quality of the music depended on where you were and the mindset of the priests at your parish. However, the Mass itself was just fine. While priests rushing through Low Mass in 15-20 minutes is clearly unacceptable, that's not inherent with the pre-conciliar Rite.

    The best 'reform' of the Tridentine rite would have been simply to put it into English


    Again, no, thank you. I don't grudge the Ordinariates the use of Tudor-style English at all, but the use of Latin is part of our tradition as, well, Latin-Rite Roman Catholics. Honestly, one reason I couldn't bring myself to join the OCSP is the lack of any provision to offer their Form entirely in Latin. Of course, that's a whole other broad topic. I'm glad though that there's an Ordinariate community using a nearby diocesan parish church with an OCSP priest visiting to offer their Mass. It was used as part of the justification for bringing in the FSSP when I sat down to talk with the vicar-general of our diocese at the chancery.
    Thanked by 4tomjaw CHGiffen ClergetKubisz CCooze
  • Ralph BednarzRalph Bednarz
    Posts: 493
    Charles... delete the bread and keep the meat and you will be down to 1 hymn!
    That's our program for a few years now but only at one Mass. Sometimes at the offertory an important seasonal hymn or office hymn from the feast might be used. Then, when Mass is over , after the dismissal the priest processes out and the people immediately follow as the hymn is sung. I don't think the we should be singing an important text or addressing God the Father in praise if the celebrant and the people are walking out at the same time. So we sing one of the more popular songs with a lighter text. Those " What about me... feelin good songs." "Christ be our light", "Be not afraid." I like them! They make me want to leave too.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
Add a Comment