I'm not sure sure everyone believed in the real presence before Vatican II. The Council gets blamed for much it didn't do. I could see the argument for retiring some obscure saints from the calendar to make room for more recent saints who actually have some connection to congregants. I seem to recall a second Confiteor that was no real loss when eliminated. Making the altars free standing instead of a shelf attached to a tabernacle was a good idea. Now they can function as altars were actually intended to function. This would have been a good time to restore priest and people orientation toward the east as it was intended from apostolic times. Latin could have been reserved for high masses but high masses kind of fell by the wayside, too. Music was taken from the hands of professionals and placed in the hand of amateurs, but I suspect those amateurs worked a lot more cheaply than pro musicians did. The quality of music went to hell in a wheelbarrow but truthfully, music was never that great in most parish churches to begin with. Other gestures and parts that were clearly holdovers from Renaissance times could have been reformed or eliminated. There was a real opportunity for genuine reform but our leaders blew it. That says more about the quality of our leaders than it does about the liturgy. After all, who is responsible for the liturgy?

Even earlier than that. New churches were being built with free standing altars in anticipation of Versus Populum in my corner of the world as early as the late 50s, before Vatican II was even called.

Is that similar to various prelates (such as in France) banning things in anticipation of TC, even though people were trying to claim that whatever the pope may or may not have been about to release may or may not have to do with the TLM?

I am not a fan of tables: But I would argue that there is a Yuuuge difference between the freestanding altars at St. John Lateran or St. Peter's and other ancient places, surmounted with a baldachino, and the shabby tables oft seen in parish churches around the world.

First, if the option of celebrating Mass Versus Populum as the custom is now (i.e., not at the Papal Altar at St. Peter's), should be abrogated, and the only posture permitted be ad orientem, as before the Council; then the question of whether the altar be freestanding or against a wall/altarpiece then becomes simply one of architecture: If a church is built in a Gothic or Baroque style, the Altar should be against the reredos/altarpiece; if it is built in a Romanesque style, the Altar should be free-standing, under a baldachino, and preferably with a mural or mosaic on the apse wall (as in Ravenna, Hagia Sophia, et al.).

And yes, the Liturgical Movement did ultimately fall to antiquarianism in the 20th century.

Regarding the reform of the Missal, let us not forget the machinations that went into its creation. I think, after reading various biographies, histories, &c., that we can be sure that the Novus Ordo Missae is not the will of Paul VI (who was manipulated by being told that the Consilium had "unanimously agreed to do X"), nor the will of the Consilium (who were manipulated by being told that "the Pope wants X"), but solely the will of Bugnini who alone wanted X, and lied to both parties. Also, had we lived in better times, I think that the Novus Ordo would have been D.O.A. and gone the way of Quignonez's Breviary; unfortunately, after several hundred years of priests and faithful being raised in the Jesuitical 'heresy' of "Absolute Obedience"(TM), and the erroneous interpretation of Vatican I's teaching on Papal infallibility, most bishops and priests simply said: Paul VI wants this so we must do it---I would venture a guess that even most of the bishops at the Synod who approved the Novus Ordo, probably felt that they had to approve it since "the Pope wants it".

As I said to a priest-friend the other day: The biggest problem in the Church today begins with "Jesu" and ends with "Its"; get rid of that, and most problems will fix themselves. Clement XIV did the right thing.

I agree with Salieri that if proper norms were in place and it was then an issue of architecture rather than posture, it would be fine. But then again, if this were the case, people wouldn’t hate on reredos to begin with.

I do not mind a nice freestanding altar that is under a substantial baldachino (which, we mustn’t forget, is a form of veiling of the altar). Part of the function of a reredos is to anchor the eye and indicate where the most important place within the church is. Baldacchinos do the same thing.

As to the "second (or third, depending on how you count 'em) Confiteor"---despite the practice of many "EF Experts", that Confiteor (and the shriving following) was removed from the 1962 Rite by John XXIII. You can find the note on that in Hayburn's "Papal Legislation" book.

St. Michael is back. The bishop here decreed that the St. Michael prayer would be said after all NO masses. Seems like they do mention John, Peter and Paul in Eucharistic Prayer 1. St. Cecilia, too.

For clarification, Serviam is referring to is the old form of the Confiteor, which ran:

I confess to almighty God, to blessed Mary ever-Virgin, to blessed Michael the Archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, to the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, to all the Saints, and to thee, brethren/father, that I have sinned ... Therefore I beseech blessed Mary ever-Virgin, blessed Michael the Archangel, blessed John the Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, all the Saints, and thee, brethren/father, to pray for me to the Lord our God.

And the Benedictines add "our holy father Benedict". I could see some trimming. A happy medium might be:

"I confess to almighty God, and to you brethren, that I have sinned ... Therefore I beseech blessed Mary ever-Virgin, blessed Michael the Archangel, blessed John the Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, all the Saints, and to you, brethren, to pray for me to the Lord our God."

Keep the explicit mention of the major saints--For some reason, maybe it's just me, but I find that actually naming the saints in the old form helps me to realize that I am asking them to intercede for me; for some reason just saying 'all the angels and saints' seems a little too abstract. Maybe I'm stupid, but what the hey.

a second Confiteor that was no real loss when eliminated

The first Confiteor prepares you for Mass, the second prepares you for Holy Communion, in part by forgiving the venial sins committed during Mass or imperfectly forgiven by the first Confiteor (e.g., because you were distracted).

The first Confiteor prepares you for Mass, the second prepares you for Holy Communion, in part by forgiving the venial sins committed during Mass.

Scruples. When you go to mass are you like they said about the Baptist fish? It goes bad as soon as you pull it out of the water. LOL

Has anybody attempted to delate the diocesan of Hamilton to the Vatican?

The bishop's letter is on-line here, and read literally, it does seem to forbid Masses offered in Latin according to the latest Missale Romanum.

As a personal opinion, I expect the bishop can regulate the language of all the Masses that are offered as part of a parish's regular schedule of public ministry.

I'm not convinced he can forbid a priest from saying Mass in Latin according to the Third Edition of the Missale Romanum at some other time as a voluntary matter (so-called "private" Masses).

Now, I am not a canon lawyer, but one of our users is an expert in liturgical law: perhaps he would like to comment?

Directed a choir for 20 years and never saw the need to confess anything. They were good people but they sang, to no one's surprise, like amateurs. Still sounded pretty good, though, for an all volunteer choir. If I had any bad thoughts, they were about the rotten sermons. I always took comfort in the fact that God probably wouldn't have liked those sermons, either.

Wow Serviam... your nutshell view on the new missal is very clearly stated and quite historically accurate. Cranmer and Luther would be amazed at the takeover if they were here to see it.

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't holy water do the same as you enter the church?

Why three Confiteors up to 1962 -
the first two are still treated as preparatory prayers, moved from the sacristy to the foot of the altar, one by the celebrant, one by. the ministers.
The third is "by" the communicants (if any).

In a lecture about the confiteor we were told that the '3rd one' was an accretion to the mass coming from the ritual of distribution of communion outside mass.
The reason to incorporate it into Mass this way relates to the moment of approching the altar, and especially makes sense in a High Mass, where the 'initial' confiteor is inaudible for the congregation (I vaguely remember that the communicants' confiteor was optionally in the vernacular, but I'm not sure about it).
Not so much sense in Low Mass, especially when the minister is understood to 'represent' the congregation - more liturgical participation of the latter than directly leads to the whole concregation saying the '2nd' confiteor at the beginning and the '3rd' one being suppressed.

All this tells us what about widespread liturgical practice? (High Mass = normative?)

There is no doubt that not everyone believed before the council, but as we know, the law of prayer shapes how/what we believe.

Applying this to my (grand-)parents pre-V2, this translates into: "We don't understand what is being said at Mass, seems that we are not supposed to understand our own faith".

They are add-ons which may not have the relevance they once had. Some can be attractive and add beauty. On the other hand, the extreme would be like my Episcopalian friend who says, "Oh, I don't believe any of that. I just enjoy the ritual." Empty ritual can be rather pointless apart from esthetics.

Cranmer and Luther would be amazed at the takeover if they were here to see it.

In a sense, I suspect they would be both jealous and alarmed. We’ve gone farther than them in so many respects.

I doubt that that was your grandparents' attitude

Of course not, but that's what (I conclude from what they told me) they experienced from liturgy, even more so my parents. Popular and private devotions were apparently central to their religious lives rather than Mass. My grandmother, though, was quite proud that she managed to follow Mass with the 'Schott'; still applauded to the change to vernacular + versus populum + everything audible + communion on the hand.
Central to understanding the Faith was Sunday afternoon catechesis, attending Mass mainly an obligation (by family and school as much as church) in order to not to go to hell. [or so]

I seem to recall a second Confiteor that was no real loss when eliminated.

I completely disagree. And, considering how many people, willfully or not, are late to Mass, why shouldn't they recite the Confiteor just before Communion? If nothing else, it is also beneficial as a preparatory prayer for a spiritual act of Communion when one is unable to receive for any number of reasons.
I really don't understand why people hate on it so much.
The priest said it.
The other ministers said it.
Considering you all want more "active participation" by PIPs, why don't you want your own time to say it, too?!

If I had any bad thoughts, they were about the rotten sermons. I always took comfort in the fact that God probably wouldn't have liked those sermons, either.

So then the priest at least should do another Confiteor?

So then the priest at least should do another Confiteor?

Some days, I believe the priest should have considered another line of work. A good priest is a treasure forever, and often hard to find.

Chris, seems to my ancient memory that much of the flaky liturgy, heretical theology, bad music, and general clowning around within the liturgy came out of Chicago. Can I get an 'amen" to that?

Well, Charles, I don't generally use that word as Americans do -- perhaps that's one reason I'm considered insufficiently patriotic-- but your assessment that much goofiness in all of those pools went out from Chicago is, absolutely, the middle of the bullseye.

The Jesuits have done their fair share of harm, to be sure. Chicago, however, was off the beam years before anyone else.