Back to Reform of the Reform
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,471
    .... unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them;

    Which in my view includes responding to the command of the Council of Trent about 'feeding the sheep' on the words of the Mass. Particpatio actuosa means the involvement in what the priest is saying and doing, knowing and taking seriously "Oráte, fratres: ut meum ac vestrum sacrifícium acceptábile fiat apud Deum Patrem omnipoténtem." not pursuing private devotions, which was often the commonest activity at Mass in my childhood.
    We still need reform of this reform, because the emphasis on scriptural readings has for too many people obscured the centrality of the Holy Sacrifice.
    Thanked by 5Elmar Schönbergian tomjaw CHGiffen bdh
  • Elmar
    Posts: 506
    I am curious whether the RotR finally gets pace now in my parish.

    Our pastor is a fervent promotor of liturgical precision and traditional devotion, he introduced over the years:
    - a home-made (DoM!) traditional hymnal,
    - B-XVI altar arrangement,
    - lifting the automatic connection lector=EMC,
    - rosary before Sunday mass,
    - a 'one-person communion rail' (aka kneeler),
    - good vestments and regular use of incense,
    - male adult altar servers (in addition to our seven [3m/4f] juvenile ones!),
    - one anticipated (NO-) mass per month with gregorian chant
    etc.
    Since 2007 our parish hosts a small regional TLM group, which has one weekday (low) mass; this was made public in 2012 or so, when our priest was installed as pastor.
    There has never been any attempt for 'mutual enrichment' from either side...
    - TLM group remains much on their own, pastor wanted to keep it like that 'for pastoral reasons', not taking the risk that people (like me!) stir up dust;
    - pastor said he 'dreamed of' a high TLM sung by the local schola but never came with a plan (now it's too late);
    - 'Latin' NO mass on Saturdays never had a Latin canon and was always speckled with varying vernacular elements 'for pastoral reasons', to the dismay of our schola leader: 'those who want full Latin go to the TLM anyway' (hey, not me!);
    - abolishing the use of choral vestments by the schola & banning it from the sanctuary, 'returning' to the loft (after some negative remarks, ignoring the positive ones), official reason: not so fit for the NO;
    - that mass was always with sparse use of incense (if any) and with only one altar server (no torch bearers) to 'keep it less solemn' than the Synday mass.
    (@experts: Isn't this a misguided interpretation of "gradual solemnity"?)

    Then there is the issue of using (or abusing?) corona restrictions for RotR improvements:
    - communion distribution by the celebrant only → I bet EMCs won't return
    - altar servers 'hand-selected' by pastor, rather than scheduled in self-management → phasing out altar girls by just not recruting new ones ('trads' won't anyway, not-so-churchy parents of 1st communicants won't know that all used to be invited to join)
    - lector cannot 'walk up' from the pews → readings by an adult altar server → former lectors might never reappear again
    - no choir → no singers complaining about incense → full use of incense,
    - still (!) no congregational singing → DoM sings the propers (even when there is a solist or choir group for the ordinary & communion motet) → people might not complain to the pastor that they miss the 'traditional' (hum... ya know) hymns although they do so → ???

    I am curious whether the RotR finally gets pace now in my parish.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 623
    "- communion distribution by the celebrant only → I bet EMCs won't return
    - altar servers... → phasing out altar girls by just not recruting new ones ('trads' won't anyway, not-so-churchy parents of 1st communicants won't know that all used to be invited to join)
    - lector cannot 'walk up' from the pews → readings by an adult altar server → former lectors might never reappear again"

    Surely, all of these are very, very good developments for which we should be thanking God, no?
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,782
    @MarkB
    This is false. The Novus Ordo is well within the parameters and guidelines for liturgical reform decreed by Sacrosanctum Concilium.

    Really, the N.O. goes far beyond SC! We had excerpts from SC published here, pointing out all the places the N.O. goes beyond what was asked for (3 and 2 year cycles! multiple prayers made up in cafes in Rome). I would list more but as I have not been to the N.O mass for around 25 years, it really is not any of my business.
    Thanked by 1dad29
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,093
    Just FYI: in my experience over the decades in the NO, lectors do ordinarily not serve as EMHC at the same Mass - the general idea to separate lay liturgical service roles. (The one exception of separating them that I have seen from time to time over the years is the delegation of one or two choristers to serve as EMHCs to the choir when the choir cannot readily join the procession for Communion with the rest of the congregation.)
    Thanked by 1bdh
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,259
    I hate when EMHCs come to the choir loft.
    Why can't the choir just receive immediately following Mass, as is often the case at the TLM, anyway?
    Thanked by 2tomjaw francis
  • Elmar
    Posts: 506
    Surely, all of these are very, very good developments for which we should be thanking God, no?
    Not so sure because all this happens without catechesis, people have to guess what pastor is about to do. Nothing is written about these topics in the parish bulletin, nor on the website, nor mentioned in the homily.

    'Pre-covid' EMCs + lectors have not been told what's the plan with them 'post-covid' as far as I know.
    I myself have to guess whether my daughter was not scheduled as an altar girl because pastor thinks that this is a good idea in summer (when I was responsible for this pre-covid, I always asked people in advance when they were going on holiday) or whether she is being phased out - not really something I'd like to thank God for actually.

    Additional problem here is that there aren't 'para-parochial' activities for the youth any more, like there used to be a catholic brass band and a catholic football (i.e. soccer) association a generation ago.
    Therefore involvement of families with the parish very (=too) much relies on liturgical assisting functions, so these kind of developments certainly don't help in curbing mass(sic!)exodus from our churches...

    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Elmar,

    Girl altar boys are always a bad thing. Thank God, that your pastor is doing (even accidentally) a good thing.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,093
    "Why can't the choir just receive immediately following Mass, as is often the case at the TLM, anyway?"

    In the NO, it's normative for the choir to receive as part of the congregation during Mass. GIRM 86, in discussing the Communion Rite within the Mass (and thus *not* about reception of Communion after the Mass), provides in relevant part "Care should be taken that singers, too, can receive Communion with ease." That doesn't oblige a singer to receive then, but it does oblige the ministers in charge to provide for easy reception of Communion by singers during the Communion Rite (and it's not up to the director of music to forbid that). The GIRM expressly underscores the communion of the community's procession for Communion in the Communion Rite.
    Thanked by 2MarkB a_f_hawkins
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,471
    Trent Session XXII Chapter VI
    The sacred and holy synod would wish indeed that, at each mass, the faithful who are present should communicate, not only in spiritual desire, but also by the sacramental participation of the Eucharist, ...
    If Pius V committee had not agreed they would not have included rubrics for the faithful present to receive immediately after the celebrant. (Ritus servandus X. 6.)
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 623
    Elmar, I'm sorry that these developments were made abruptly and without catechesis on the matter, and that they involve your family. Much the same thing happened in my OF parish about five or six years ago with servers, my younger sister being the last girl actually. Nevertheless, effective communication or not, the elimination of girls from the role of acolyte is an objectively good thing, and in my parish at least has had the effect of increasing vocation awareness among the boys and also orienting the role of acolyte back toward its proper clerical origins.

    As an aside, though my sister was a bit put off in the short term, she is today a practicing, traditional-leaning Catholic who cares about the integrity of the Mass and living the Faith. Being scrubbed from the server list shouldn't be a road to apostasy. In fact, the whole idea that all of the laity have to be actively involved in holding something or reading something or DOING something is a rather unfortunate and erroneous interpretation of "active participation."

    I do sympathize with the lack of youth activities at most parishes. Even in traditionally Catholic countries, many of these parochial culturally Catholic clubs and activities have ceased to exist, which is indeed lamentable.
    Thanked by 3tomjaw Elmar bdh
  • Elmar
    Posts: 506
    trentonjconn,
    The thing that worries me most is that pastor's motives are unclear. I'm no way sure that he is actually phasing out altar girls, just a few months ago he told me how proud we could be as parents of two dedicated servers, my elder daughter also serving as lector when she's on duty. So maybe it's really just his own odd idea of 'vacation time', whilst we are mostly home due to covid restrictions - and I'm enjoying restarting of my two choirs, mid July!!!

    I wholeheartedly agree with your statement on "a rather unfortunate and erroneous interpretation of active participation"; but taking the opportunity of the covid restrictions for definitely 'dropping' the superfluous EMHCs and pseudo-clerically behaving lectors without a word of explanation why this is a necessary move, that's what alienates village families by the dozens, whose ancestors resisted reformation, built our marvelous church in the 19th century and have kept it intact by their donations ever since. There are people who say, their parish ceased to be theirs with this pastor (which I believe is unfair btw.)
    We had this dropping of the ageing youth pop choir - before covid! - which possibly saved more parish money than it cost in losing donations...

    I'm not afraid for the faith of my own children in case this is the end of their altar serving, but I lament the missed opportunities for evangelization of others. We had several families who got again in contact with their maybe-forgotten faith by the mere fact that their son or daughter was eager to become an altar server after first communion. We would have missed out half of these with an altar-boys-only policy, whatever its possible theological soundness.
    Thanked by 4trentonjconn tomjaw Olivier bdh
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    I appreciate your experience, Elmar, but this is off-topic.
    Thanked by 3tomjaw Elmar Arthur Connick
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,471
    No doubt any change will cause some people to shout, but DW:TM shows some changes which work within GIRM (as modified by the 'rubrical directory). More options, unfortunately, but the prayers at the foot of the altar can be used, and a Last Gospel. And, optionally, a restoration of all those prayers said in a low voice at the offertory in place of the 'table prayer'.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw Elmar
  • Elmar
    Posts: 506
    Chonak,
    OK, I just assumed that problems related to (communication about) implementing liturgical changes 'back to Tradition' in 'spirit of V-II'-parishes actually were a central issue of RotR...
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,471
    Elmar - it is essential, but getting liturgy carried out within the rubrics is distinct from changing the rubrics. I see RotR as about structural defects, some of which I have mentioned above. (And I believe there were structural defects in 1962, some corrected in 1965 and 1967)
    Thanked by 1Elmar
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,084
    I'm interested to hear from anyone in the Archdiocese of Portland, the Archdiocese of Phoenix, or the Diocese of Marquette about the general ethos of Novus Ordo Masses in those places. I believe those dioceses have bishops who have been advocates of RotR, if not in name then certainly in efforts.

    Has it made a difference? Big? Small? Negligible? Are the fruits scattered and minimal or widespread?

    Have pastors and parish music directors been successfully brought on board with the bishop's liturgical vision and priorities? Has there been resistance?

    What have the bishops done to assist parishes in implementing their liturgical priorities?
    Thanked by 2a_f_hawkins Elmar
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,259
    On Saturday, our diocese (Knoxville) moved the remains of [SoG] Fr. Patrick Ryan from the cemetery to our Basilica, the original building of which he had once been pastor.
    Both the bishop at that Mass, and our rector at Sunday's, mentioned why he is a model and martyr of charity - staying and ministering, even door to door, taking care of the physical and spiritual needs of those terrified and made ill during the yellow fever epidemic.
    They drew parallels to that being a time of epidemic, and this being a time of "pandemic."
    Our bishop celebrated Mass in the Novus Ordo. Not irreverent, but still lacking what we normally see at a TLM.
    Our rector mentioned that 8 years after Fr. Ryan's death, the bishop celebrated a Solemn High Requiem Mass for Fr. Ryan, and they moved him, as a hero, with great ceremony, from the attached church cemetery to the cemetery that was purchased a few miles away. He was the first to be buried there, and the positioning in that cemetery is called Priest's Hill.
    He mentioned Fr. Ryan's vestments upon exhumation - those of a priest who would even now be offering a TLM.

    However, the parallels in my mind were different from the parallels they tried to draw (including the 2 overly-pushy suggestions by the bishop that everyone "do their part" and get "vaccinated.")
    They both failed to mention how not parallel were the responses of current priests and bishops... in that staying and helping meant (very-likely) death, but the Sacraments and spiritual well-being of the people was more important than the physical well-being of a priest or other religious.
    In this relatively short period of time, we went from bishops who could celebrate Solemn High Masses to our bishop who doesn't even know the Latin Mass, much less seemingly support it, outside of keeping people away from the SSPX.
    That Father's vestments match because he was offering the Ancient Mass, currently under later attack, which this brave priest was able to celebrate openly, freely, for the benefit of all.

    Yes, our priests celebrate their NO Masses with much greater solemnity and obvious reverence, according to a RotR, than many of the priests in the very-near-by parishes, because they love the TLM Mass.
    They learned the TLM because, upon discovery, they realized there was so much more they should be offering with and for us to God in their priestly duties.

    Some bishops obstinately refuse to even learn the TLM.
    Why would someone simply refuse and disdain such? That isn't keeping with any hermeneutic of continuity, of carrying on(ward) any faith traditions.

    It's sad.
    I watched, sang, participated during Saturday's Mass, and I was sad.

    Supporting or acknowledging V-2 doesn't mean wholeheartedly accepting after as equal to that which came before.
    This situation is so very sad.
    Thanked by 3tomjaw Chris Garton-Zavesky CHGiffen
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,980

    Some bishops obstinately refuse to even learn the TLM.


    In all fairness, before becoming bishop, the bishop here had, I believe, bi-ritual faculties. Without looking it up, I recall those faculties being from the Maronite church. Correct me if I am wrong. I think he had to give that up when he became a Latin Rite bishop. In any event, he does know more than the NO. He may or may not know how to celebrate the TLM. We will never know unless he demonstrates it.

    If a bishop or priest pulled the TLM out of the air on an unprepared congregation, that congregation would be totally lost.
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,259
    Doing so at a parish that consistently offers the TLM would be nothing more than a very pleasant surprise.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,980
    Doing so at a parish that consistently offers the TLM would be nothing more than a very pleasant surprise.


    To the people who attend a TLM, it would be a pleasant surprise. To the rest of the parish it would be an indecipherable shock. What many TLM folks forget is that many if not most, of the Catholics alive today have never known anything other than the NO. The TLM is a curiosity and they are not familiar with it. It is no longer the principal rite of the church, like it or not. I suspect it never will be again.

    I would not be at all surprised if to the majority of your parish, the TLM and its folks are nothing short of peculiar. Doing a TLM for others would require much in the way of preparation and explanation. I also suspect you would have to explain to the NO crowd that a missal is not something you shoot at enemies. They have likely never seen a missal and don't know what it is for. It could be done but how many parishes would find it worth the effort?
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,259
    There is a lengthy explanation before each weekly TLM.
    I'd be interested to know what sort of explanation would be made before a NO Mass.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,980
    To the people who have attended it for the last 50 years, they need no explanation. It is in English which most speak and other language masses are routine. These are spoken languages not languages from extinct cultures so they are understood.

    I remember when the TLM was the only mass. The sisters spent years teaching the TLM to school children. It is complicated both in ritual and choreography and some symbolism in it is obscure. It requires explanation to those not familiar with it.

    Hadn't thought of this reason, but maybe that is why some were ignoring the mass and praying rosaries.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    IF they need no explanation, how do you account for the fact that, of those who attend regularly, no one can recall hearing a sermon on the need to be in the state of grace in order to receive Holy Communion, or what the Holy Eucharist is?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,980
    So when did you last hear a sermon on those topics? I heard about parish finances - or the lack of them. One sermon was about a car. Something the ladies in the parish were doing - probably something subversive. And so on.

    The emphasis on sermons was not followed through to see that priests actually preached on what they were supposed to preach. Instead, sermons became a vehicle for Father to show his humor, or lack of it. Also to hog a microphone and be the center of attention and in general make an arse of himself. In some instances the intentions might have been good but the delivery was anything but.
    Thanked by 1MarkB
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Excuse me. I didn't realize how much in the middle of a thought that post was.

    Since things don't need much explanation, being in the vernacular, why do 2/3 of those who attend Mass regularly not accept or understand the teaching of the Church on all sorts of subjects? If things don't need much explanation, why is Holy Communion, received kneeling, rare?
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Elmar
    Posts: 506
    ... not accept or understand the teaching of the Church on all sorts of subjects?
    If things don't need much explanation, why is Holy Communion, received kneeling, rare?
    I guess that you already know the answer to your questions: It's because
    (1) this is not what many priest address much in their homilies,
    (2) this is not what the Church teaches to do (like it or not).

    Of course it's more complicated: we ARE asked to receive in a reverent way; that's what I've been taught extensively (on the hand; standig!) in communion catechesis in the 70s.

    What is lacking is the ars celebrandi, and I agree that it asks more (and probably too much in many cases) from the celebrant to let you see/feel/know that the Eucharist is banquet and sacrifice when the focus is to make the banquet aspect more prominent in the new lityurgy.
    And when it comes to freely-held introduction words to the mass, of course people easily understand what the priest says - but he has to say the right things, again all too often this is asking too much.

    [This as my attempt to answer your questions, in case there was anything to answer at all...]
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Elmar,

    You side-swiped my questions, but you have touched on important points. [Side-swiped means something like "hit in an oblique fashion"]

    The words of popes and cardinals to the effect that the normative way of receiving Holy Communion is kneeling, and on the tongue fall on deaf ears and blind eyes because the text of the Missal (and the rubrics, and the architecture and the music) tell priest and layman that Mass is about us, and that we're all grown up, and that "these or other similar words" are good enough, that there is something rigid, mentally unstable about those who wish to receive Our Lord reverently.

    A Mass said on the front of jeep in a warzone is still Mass, it's true, but the warzone is every bit as real.

    Of course, priests don't spend much time on the topics I mentioned -- homiletics is the application of Scripture to the lives of the assembled faithful, and no hard teaching can be allowed there because the lectionary has led by example: important difficult uncomfortable texts are "optional".
    Thanked by 2Elmar tomjaw
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,980

    Since things don't need much explanation, being in the vernacular, why do 2/3 of those who attend Mass regularly not accept or understand the teaching of the Church on all sorts of subjects?


    Because you can lead a horse to water...
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • francis
    Posts: 10,825
    ...and even horses will avoid ransid water

    [If you are tempted to post sarcastic talk like this, then you have run out of worthwhile things to say on the topic. Please desist. --admin]
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
Add a Comment