Cardinal Cupich: "The Gift of Traditionis Custodes"
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,885
    Could it have to do with the fact that publishing is expensive and that missal doesn't sell? Is there even any demand for it?

    There WAS demand for it, especially after TC, which is why they put a stop to it. If people couldn't have the TLM and would be forced to do the N.O., they wanted to do it in Latin as it was originally promulgated. Now you cant get your hands on them.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,978

    You clearly didn't see the recent opening mass for the synod on synodality:


    No, I didn't see it. After 30 years working in the federal government, I thought a synod on synodality sounded too much like a meeting of the committee on committees.
    Thanked by 4Nathan_the_Organist tomjaw Chris Garton-Zavesky Gustavo Zayas
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,978

    There WAS demand for it, especially after TC, which is why they put a stop to it.


    There is an altar version of it on Amazon. It's rather pricey.
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 1,048
    Why would they talk about the "Mass of the Ages" as a separate rite that would never be allowed to develop or be revised in a natural way, as occurred for centuries? How anyone could see this as the basis for a sustainable movement, rather than a temporary concession to the SSPX and groups like it, makes no sense to me.

    It doesn't make any sense to me either, because no one is proposing this. Of course trads accept natural development and revision, since they accept the Missal as published in the 20th century, which has been modified since the Council of Trent. And even some modest changes in the past few years (e.g. use of optional prefaces) have been accepted. What they are very wary of is changes at present which they see as manifestly inopportune - given the instability of liturgical practice, the marked lack of liturgical formation among clergy, and the ideological divisions in the church over liturgy. What is called for now is a period of "liturgical peace" if you will, when the rite as it exists now has a chance to gain some traction in practice "as is," without any modifications.

    Unfortunately this has been disrupted somewhat by TC. So it always strikes that the very thing advocates of TC call on trads to do is inhibited by TC itself. In order for there to be fruitful and natural changes to the 1962 Missal, there as to be stable practice and experience of the rite over time - but this is precisely what is threatened by TC. Likewise, the increased use of Latin and chant in the vernacular Mass is more often than not championed by the same priests who celebrate the older rite as well - the very priests who have now been sidelined for being attached to the old rite.

    And again, you speak of natural development of the 1962 Missal as if this would have happened except for the intransigence of traditionalist groups. Huh? The powers that be have never been interested in this, a least since the mid-1960s. So trads don't necessarily think that a completely unchanged rite is the basis for a sustainable movement either - but what other choice have they ever had?
    The reformed rite is the normative liturgy of the Church, as opposed to being permitted as an olive branch towards traditionalist communities like the SSPX. As the purpose of that olive branch was distorted and led to a further rift, it was deemed harmful to the very goals it originally had.

    Benedict XVI has explicitly rejected the notion that the old rite was permitted as an "olive branch" to the SSPX or similar communities. As for "leading to further rift," communities like St. John Cantius in Chicago are examples of just the opposite phenomenon. Either way it makes little sense to restrict the rite on the basis of healing a rift, when the result will be either the same or worse, with those who were never alienated being deprived of a beautiful rite.
    Thanked by 6ServiamScores francis trentonjconn tomjaw Andrew_Malton sdtalley3
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Pfreese,

    To a certain extent, that’s on you, not the Holy Father. That you may harbor a sneaking suspicion that he’s a heretic does not make it so. The sooner that we who expect our ecclesial leaders to give us charity and the presumption of good faith, practice it ourselves, the better things will turn out for all of us in this world and the next.


    You're right -- at one level, at least -- that my concerns about the Holy Father are partly my problem instead of his. On the other hand, if the context of his statements makes studied ambiguity the right and proper interpretation of them, or if he constantly says things which appear to attack what he ought to defend....my conclusion is reasonable, if deplorable.
    Thanked by 1CCooze
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,978
    Pope Francis is the product of the ambiguous age in which we live. There is no certainty, the prevailing creed is doubt, and those in authority have squandered away that authority. He is truly a product of his time. I don't think everything bad can be laid at his feet since it more properly belongs to the prevailing teachings of our age. We have met the milieu and it rather sucks. Unfortunately, we don't have much of an alternative - that is, unless we all become Protestants.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,232
    a separate reform of the 1962 Missal should be proposed that updates it in line with the wishes of the Council. To my knowledge, no such reform has ever been seriously promoted or considered


    You mean the 1965 version, of course.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,978
    I thought, and still have a copy, the 1965 was a pretty good translation. It seems to me closer to what I believe the council actually intended.
    Thanked by 1drforjc
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,232
    The sooner that we who expect our ecclesial leaders to give us charity


    Frankly, many would settle for CLARITY.
    Thanked by 5CharlesW CHGiffen ServiamScores CCooze tomjaw
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 997
    Could it have to do with the fact that publishing is expensive and that missal doesn't sell? Is there even any demand for it?


    Hmmm, it's still available:
    https://www.vaticanum.com/en/missale-romanum-editio-typica-tertia-emendata-2008-half-calf-edition
    Thanked by 1toddevoss
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,092
    The Council expressly called for expansion/change to the lections. Originally, a 4 year cycle for Sundays was contemplated, but reduced to 3 years. None of that is in the interim Missals, and a lot flowed from it.
  • drforjc
    Posts: 38
    None of that is in the interim Missals
    The only thing missing in the 65 Ordo Missae. And SC did not specify how it was to be done, regardless of what was "contemplated." Adding a 3rd reading would have fulfilled the letter of the law.
    Thanked by 1Andrew_Malton
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,978
    I'm kind of glad a third reading wasn't added. I have found it funny that some Protestants say Catholics don't read or know the Bible. We are scriptured to death. We typically have much more scripture at mass they they have ever had in their services.
    Thanked by 2CCooze hilluminar
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,092
    "Adding a 3rd reading would have fulfilled the letter of the law."

    Nice try, but no. The Council called for readings expanded in the course of "a prescribed number of years". [And the Council called for a lot of other reforms of liturgical rites/books that were not fully implemented for a long while after 1965.]

    "I'm kind of glad a third reading wasn't added."

    (Scratches head.) It was for Sundays, solemnities and many feasts.

    "We are scriptured to death. "

    But some voluble traditionalists complain that the conciliar Mass has *less* scripture than its predecessor. This group sometimes overlaps with those who complain about the conciliar Mass being overly didactic, except when it's not teaching texts that should be taught.

    Et cet.
    Thanked by 3a_f_hawkins bhcordova tomjaw
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,978

    But some voluble traditionalists complain...


    What don't they complain about?

    I would argue that the way readings are grouped and presented, you only get an incomplete story. I get far more from scripture by reading beyond the point where Sunday readings end. The context gets compromised in mass readings since they seem to cut off in the wrong places. Sometimes they also seem to begin in the wrong places.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Liam,

    Among the charges against Charles which simply won't stick, "voluble traditionalist" is one.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw dad29
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,092
    I wasn't describing Charles; I also wouldn't class Charles by the drift of his comments here over the years as a traditionalist in the Roman Rite, as it were. My "but" is in deliberate contrast to his comment.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    As someone who could (rightly or wrongly) be described as a "voluble traditionalist", there are many issues I have with the way in which the New Rite (and let us not forget that it is, in fact, a New Rite, and hardly an organic development from what came before---the only thing a committee can create that is 'organic' is a word that comes after "Winnie the...") was cobbled together: the addition of weekday lections (at least for the seasons outside of Ordinary Time) and the addition of an extra prophecy reading on Sundays and solemnities isn't one of them. I do dislike the gargantuan lectionary simply on account of its lack of practicality.

    I don't deny that some reform was needed: But I think that the destruction of the venerable Roman Rite (which was not invented by Pius V, but goes back to the fifth century), and its replacement with something that has more options than Swiss cheese has holes, was the wrong way to do it. The de-ritualized and anti-ritualistic nature of the Novus Ordo optionitis makes me think that those who put it together either, A) didn't agree on anything; or, B) were Freudians who thought that any ritual, even or perhaps especially a religious ritual, were symptomatic of some type of perversion.
    Thanked by 9Lars ServiamScores trentonjconn toddevoss tomjaw Andrew_Malton dad29 rich_enough Gustavo Zayas
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,467
    Salieri - as a firm supporter of the NO as preferable to the TLM, I can agree with most of that. But I do not think the reformers intentionally de-ritualized the Mass, that is a product of a modern attitude prevalent among laity and clergy. For instance the reduction of the number of signs of the cross over the offerings was an attempt to ensure that they were not done hastily and sloppily, as I remember they often were when the celebrant had his back to the congregation.

    “The modern habit of doing ceremonial things unceremoniously is no proof of humility; rather it proves the offender's inability to forget himself in the rite, and his readiness to spoil for every one else the proper pleasure of ritual.” - C.S. Lewis, 1942
    Thanked by 1hilluminar
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 1,063
    Given the climate of its era, I think the Novus Ordo was the best reform we could have hoped for from the 1960s. I wish that the reform could have taken place in a more sober era, to avoid many of the mockeries that crept in from becoming commonplace.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen CharlesW
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,885
    For instance the reduction of the number of signs of the cross over the offerings was an attempt to ensure that they were not done hastily and sloppily, as I remember they often were when the celebrant had his back to the congregation.


    Nice try. There was a concerted effort to make the mass less “Catholic” and more favorable to Protestants. 30+ signs of the cross was decidedly off-putting to Protestants, hence they were severely curtailed.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,467
    OTOH there was an eloquent article in Notitiae about the importance of reverential gesture to the ars celebrandi, making the simplification a key point, OTOH it was in French and no translation was offered there unlike many contributions. (I don't have dates or names to hand).
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 621
    What about the elimination of the rubrical requirement to keep canonical digits clasped together? This seems to be pretty straightforward desacralization, in relation to the Eucharist to boot.
    Thanked by 2CCooze tomjaw
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    as a firm supporter of the NO as preferable to the TLM,


    and here I took you for a reasonable man! (teasing)
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,978
    Salieri - as a firm supporter of the NO as preferable to the TLM, I can agree with most of that.


    I have nothing against an NO mass properly done. The problem is that it often is not properly done. I also have nothing against the EF. It's biggest problem is the attitudes and behaviors of some of its people. They create their own bad press and are mostly responsible for the ill will directed toward them. As a musician, I can work with either rite since neither are my own. I am, after all, Byzantine Catholic. I will generally try to work with all people of good will, good intention, and civil behavior.

    As for the Council, I have repeatedly said there could have been no worse time than the sixties to hold a council. Especially a council concerned with revising the liturgy. It was the era of folk music and it seemed every half-wit excuse for a musician was wandering around with a guitar.
    Thanked by 4tomjaw Nathan_the_Organist a_f_hawkins bhcordova
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,885
    I also have nothing against the EF. It's biggest problem is the attitudes and behaviors of some of its people.

    Same is largely true of the N.O. One of my favorite quips of all time is the old adage that the church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints. Amen.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw francis
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,978

    Same is largely true of the N.O. One of my favorite quips of all time is the old adage that the church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints. Amen.


    Not so in my experience. I don't run into the anointed, true believers, saving the church and preserving it from all error to the degree I find among some EF people. I have no idea why they are like that. If they took a more lovable approach they could do great good in restoring some of the better things from the old liturgy. As it is, many are just put off by them. Too bad, really. One could take the EF and charitably explain its beauty and benefits to others. A missed opportunity while indulging in self-righteousness and smug superiority. I think it comes down to do you want to evangelize or retreat into a cult-like fortress.
    Thanked by 1toddevoss
  • richardUKrichardUK
    Posts: 85
    I'm now being told this whole article was a send-up. Sarcasm. Who knows for sure? I can't imagine this cardinal would in any way endorse chant and polyphony.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,885
    As it is, many are just put off by them. ... self-righteousness and smug superiority.

    This seems a gross generalization of the truth. It's true that there is a vocal minority of people who actively debate things about the liturgy, but most of the people whom I've met at TLM's are just going about their business every bit as quietly as the people who attend the average N.O. Mass.
    Thanked by 3tomjaw Andrew_Malton rich_enough
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,080
    I don't think the article was sarcasm. I think Cardinal Cupich sincerely meant that Pope Francis has made a decisive move to unify the Roman Rite liturgically by making the postconciliar liturgy normative. Cupich probably wouldn't support the exclusive use of chant or polyphony at Mass even though towards the end of his article he acknowledges and supports that the reformed Mass can be celebrated using such music; but his article isn't about music: it's about the move toward liturgical and ritual unity in the Roman Rite that Traditionis Custodes legislates.

    The revelations yesterday and today of correspondence from the SCDWDS provide more insight into what Cupich is probably intimating: that the decision and vision marked by Traditionis Custodes will eventually entail the suppression of the 1962 Missal in the Roman Rite. The Roman Rite cannot continue to permit the preconciliar and the postconciliar liturgies to be celebrated alongside one another if the ecclesiology and liturgical reforms of Vatican II have provided the Church with a renewed vision of Church and worship that the preconciliar rites do not express or do not express adequately.

    The "gift" of which Cupich speaks, is a firm decision to unify the Church around Vatican II's ecclesiology and liturgical renewal. That's not sarcasm.

    See here:
    https://gloria.tv/post/myjxBqYSuxVF1Yr1wBF2gSxgz

    and here:
    https://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2021/11/06/archbishop-roche-on-the-interpretation-of-traditionis-custodes/

    Thanked by 2CharlesW Don9of11
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,782
    The "gift" of which Cupich speaks, is a firm decision to unify the Church around Vatican II's ecclesiology and liturgical renewal. That's not sarcasm.
    Yes, not sarcasm, but funny all the same. The Church of course is not just the Latin Rite, so an attempt at unifying with just one of the Rites and Usages shows a flawed understanding of The Church.

    Time to start fundraising to get our local SSPX a large church building.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,978
    I still think the EF contingent could do a better job of selling itself. Look outward more and not so inward. Authorities are a bit less likely to argue if the numbers are there. Sad to say, but numbers equal money. If you really want ecclesiastical attention, wave coin of the realm in front of them.

    I think Mark nails it in regards to the good cardinal and his intentions.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Another possible explanation of the Cardinal's article: it's not sarcasm, but satire. It belongs at the Babylon Bee or the Onion or something similar. Absurd things said with a straight face are still absurd.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 1,063
    Some people have compared the use of the 1962 Missal with the Anglican Ordinariate as a distinct Use. Let me put it this way: if the loudest voices in the Ordinariate community had been squawking about the Novus Ordo and Pope Francis nearly as much as hardline EF traditionalists have, the Ordinariate would be gone by now. What could have been a fruitful Communion between the two rites, and was in many places, turned into a rallying point for schism and division. Whether this was due to the SSPX's influence or not is unclear to me. Either way, the fact that this action was in response to a clerical questionnaire should speak volumes, whether the action taken was charitable or not.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW CHGiffen
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,978
    Let me put it this way: if the loudest voices in the Ordinariate community had been squawking about the Novus Ordo and Pope Francis nearly as much as hardline EF traditionalists have, the Ordinariate would be gone by now.


    It's the old saw that it often isn't what you say, it's how you say it.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,232
    the fact that this action was in response to a clerical questionnaire should speak volumes, whether the action taken was charitable or not.


    Some reports state that the results of the questionnaire were actually favorable to continuing the EF as it was going. Most Bishops reported that the EF adherents were just fine, had no problems with other portions of VatII, were civil, yada.

    That begs the question of manipulation of the results which happens to be a time-honored tradition in the Church. (Who do you think REALLY won those parish council elections, eh?)
    Thanked by 6ServiamScores Chris Garton-Zavesky tomjaw CCooze Casavant Organist drforjc
  • francis
    Posts: 10,818
    The TLM goers do not have to “sell” the truth to anyone... the Mass is not a tool of evangelism... it’s a sacrifice for sin... and if you are running away from the TLM because of people’s attitudes, you are coming for the wrong reason from the get go.
    Thanked by 5ServiamScores Chris Garton-Zavesky tomjaw CCooze Gustavo Zayas
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,978
    The TLM goers do not have to “sell” the truth to anyone... the Mass is not a tool of evangelism... it’s a sacrifice for sin... and if you are running away from the TLM because of people’s attitudes, you are coming for the wrong reason from the get go.


    I don't run to the TLM because I belong to an eastern church with a liturgy that is 1,000 years older and virtually unchanged over time. As pointed out above, if attitudes among some of the rabid folks like Voris, etc. were more like those of the Anglican Ordinariate folks, a much kinder reaction from authorities would be likely. The TLM folks made their own enemies and I hope they don't cause the 1962 missal to be suppressed. I would hate to see that happen, but they only have themselves to blame if it does. The comments I copied are a perfect example of why.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,467
    The Council of Trent called for sacramental participation by the congregation (Session XXII ch 6), and for their intellectual engagement (Session XXII ch 8). The Roman Court's Mass as developed for the 1570 Missal did not meet those demands, even with the 1962 rubrics. I think that 1965/67 rubrics show that it could be done.
    Peter Kwasniewski's migration from Reform of the Reform, to outright (though implicit) rejection of the Tridentine mandate shows the dangerous split that was developing.
    Thanked by 4CharlesW MarkB Liam toddevoss
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,885
    Charles, I wouldn’t count Voris as a spokesman for anyone but himself. Let’s just be clear about that. He may indeed support the tlm, but he’s a horse of a different color and has a unique knack for offending people writ large.

    AF—Pius V’s missal wasn’t an invention or development, but a formal codification of what had already been done for centuries. Sacramental participation means actually receive the Eucharist, and intellectual engagement involves the utilization of the mind and will, not simply “doing things at mass”. Most of the people at novus ordo masses don’t actively participate either. They either sit completely mute or they do things by wrote without any thought or contemplation. The idea that vernacular mass with all sorts of opportunities to be busy bodies (read: distractions) is a complete farce. That dead horse has been beaten to a pulp. Most TLM’ers that I know actively participate muuuuuch more than novus ordo goers because they take the liturgy seriously, as well as prayer, and are engaged via their missals. Externally it seems these people “aren’t doing anything” but their level of intellectual and prayerful engagement far out strips that of the average novus ordo attendee who doesn’t even know the basic tenets of the faith.
    Thanked by 3tomjaw toddevoss Gustavo Zayas
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 1,063
    Most TLM’ers that I know actively participate muuuuuch more than novus ordo goers because they take the liturgy seriously, as well as prayer, and are engaged via their missals. Externally it seems these people “aren’t doing anything” but their level of intellectual and prayerful engagement far out strips that of the average novus ordo attendee who doesn’t even know the basic tenets of the faith.

    Because it's a tiny self-selected subset of Catholics who intentionally seek out an uncommon form of liturgy, which presupposes at least some interest in the subject. It has nothing to do with the rite itself.
    Thanked by 5a_f_hawkins MarkB CharlesW CHGiffen toddevoss
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    I don't run to the TLM because I belong to an eastern church with a liturgy that is 1,000 years older and virtually unchanged over time.

    No it isn't: The Roman Mass is just as old as (possibly older than) Chrysostom or Basil: Just because a Pope issued an official publication in 1570 doesn't mean that that is the year the Roman Mass was invented---He simply issued an 'urtext' of the Roman Rite: Nobody says that the B Minor Mass wasn't written until 1954 because that was the year that Breitkopf issued its 'urtext' of it. Which is completely different from the Novus Ordo, which was invented in 1964-69.
    Thanked by 5ServiamScores dad29 tomjaw CCooze toddevoss
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,467
    I agree that they pretty much just took the Curial Missal unchanged for over 800 years. It was not suited to congregational engagement even when Charlemagne imposed it. They jettisoned sequences tropes and farcing in the vernacular which had developed in pastoral settings. Trent charged pastors with explaining the texts during the Mass, "lest the hungry sheep look up and are not fed".
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,978
    No it isn't: The Roman Mass is just as old as (possibly older than) Chrysostom or Basil:


    Not so. I would agree that in the 5th century those liturgies were all more alike than different. With the collapse of Rome and subsequent invasions, not much remained the same. Charlemagne's era brought new changes not seen before. So yes, Pius V codified pretty much what had been in use 300 years prior, but no further back than that. The idea that the mass of Pius V is as old as the eastern, or even the early Roman rite, is another of the stories the TLM folks use to invent histories for themselves. But they said the Gloria. Yes they did, but that doesn't speak to the remainder of the liturgy. Some of the rubrics in the TLM date to no earlier than late Medieval and Renaissance times.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,978
    Because it's a tiny self-selected subset of Catholics who intentionally seek out an uncommon form of liturgy, which presupposes at least some interest in the subject. It has nothing to do with the rite itself.


    Like many "subsets" there is the, "look at me I'm special" air that surrounds it.

    Which is completely different from the Novus Ordo, which was invented in 1964-69.


    Actually, some parts of the NO go all the way back to the earliest days of Christianity. Now whether or not those parts should have been brought back so many years later, is another issue.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,885
    I find it very sad, Charles, that it seems to me that you've been hurt or offended severely by one of these groups. It is very clear to me that you've had some sort of bad experience with these groups which clearly colors your vision of it all (perfectly natural, if I am right). But, I really do think you are seeing a boogeyman in an empty closet.

    Like many "subsets" there is the, "look at me I'm special" air that surrounds it.

    Same applies to novus ordo lectors, sacristans, altar servers, music ministers, "extra ordinary" ministers of holy communion... etc. in the novus ordo. Especially musicians and EoMHCs.
    Thanked by 4tomjaw CCooze rich_enough Gustavo Zayas
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,978
    So let's all move to a remote monastery away from all these evil people.

    No, I haven't been hurt by any of them. I'm pretty tough and such things bounce off me. The biggest issue I have with the TLM is not the liturgy. Although not as ancient and not the "mass of the ages" as its proponents teach, it is a beautiful liturgy with gorgeous music. What may do it in is the passion with which its adherents enjoy shooting themselves in the foot.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Serviam,

    Wasn't the point of "turning the priest around", so that he faced the people instead of the tabernacle and the crucifix, that the priest would say by this very gesture, "LOOK AT ME!"?
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,467
    that the priest would say by this very gesture, "LOOK AT ME!"
    That may have been the unfortunate consequence, but the primary reason in the Mass of the Catechumens is to get the priests to be aware of the (Tridentine and more recent) demand that they communicate with the congregation. The practice of the celebrant keeping his eyes downcast leads to a distortion, I would suggest often a perversion, of the first part of the Mass. Catechumens are under instruction and my quotation above emphasises that. The fact that there were typically no enrolled catechumens is not relevant, Trent does not suppose there were, we are all in need of catechesis.
    The Mass of the Faithful, the Holy Sacrifice, is another matter entirely. Communication has a different meaning here, but remains integral.
    Thanked by 1toddevoss
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Hawkins,

    I think you've got some crossed wires here. The reason some people didn't object to versus populum was that one particular part of the Mass is called the Mass of the Catechumens, but the purpose of the reformers (not just Bugnini, but certainly him) was to make the Mass as un-Mass-like as possible. Since the Mass can't not be a sacrifice, let us put it in multipurpose buildings, let us use as much of the idiom of modern man as possible, and let us avoid all those unfortunate medievalisms like adoration and such.

    The catechumenate learns not by didactic presentation in the course of Mass, but by allowing itself to follow with great attention the words and actions of the priest, deacon and subdeacon.

    Remember that Pope Paul VI's own documents said that the Mass should be so simplified as to need no explanation, easily within the comprehension of ordinary people, and that commentators should be used to explain what was so different from what had come before and might very easily be incomprehensible to the poor unwashed masses.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
Add a Comment