DC: to avoid getting mixed up in the discussion
  • TCJ
    Posts: 863
    "And then I'll just move down the street"


    In some cases, that may happen, but further implementation of TC means that fewer and fewer TLMs will be available, and for many people moving down the street will involve a lot more than walking a couple blocks.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    I second NihilNominis' very moving statement which has been my experience also. I am perfectly at peace with Pope Benedict's mutual enrichment strategy of the two forms of the Roman rite and believe it was progressing beautifully in the two dioceses I orbit in. I often attend the NOM during the week and appreciate some aspects of it and believe there is great potential for beautiful expression of that form.

    All I want to say is that after reading Fr. Charles Murr's gripping testimonial about the multi-volume Gagnon Report on Freemasonry's influence in the Vatican, I believe that the faithful and the world deserve to know what was in that report and learn more about the men who designed the usus recentior before we assent to the official extermination of the usus antiquior.

    BTW, here are the facts from that Fr. Murr's book about the chief architect of the Novus Ordo and the Gagnon Report which Fr. Murr decided to reveal since all the major characters in his account have all passed away.

    FACT: Two cardinals brought a dossier to Pope Paul VI claiming that Abp Bugnini and Cardinal Baggio (head of Congregation of Bishops) were Freemasons.

    FACT: Interpol investigated and corroborated that Bugnini was definitely a Mason.

    FACT: Pope Paul VI fired Bugnini and sent him to Iran because he believed he was a Freemason.

    FACT: Paul VI was so disturbed by this that he brought in Cardinal Gagnon to conduct a three-year investigation of every person in the Vatican to find out how extensive this problem was.

    FACT: The result of the investigation was three hefty volumes of documentation which was presented in succession to Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul I and Pope John Paul II by Cardinal Gagnon. (Fr. Murr drove Cardinal Gagnon to each of these momentous papal meetings.)

    FACT: Pope Paul VI told Cardinal Gagnon that he was too old to deal with it since he would be dying soon, and asked Cardinal Gagnon to hand the report to his successor.

    FACT: Pope John Paul I met with Cardinal Gagnon and met with Cardinal Baggio the night before he died for the purpose of confronting him about these charges and to fire him.

    FACT: The Swiss Guards outside the room guarding the door heard lots of yelling and commotion, and Pope John Paul I died a few hours later from cardiac arrest.

    FACT: Cardinal Ratzinger said in his autobiography that the catastrophic decline in the Church was due to what he called "the collapse of the liturgy".

    Is it not time for the Vatican to release the results of the Gagnon investigation before we start rounding up Latin Mass Catholics and putting them in liturgical re-education camps in an effort to eradicate every vestige of traditional praxis that is not in keeping with the reforms of someone who (according to three cardinals, a pope and Interpol) was an excommunicated member of the Grand Orient Lodge?
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 1,063

    BTW, here are the facts from that Fr. Murr's book about the chief architect of the Novus Ordo and the Gagnon Report which Fr. Murr decided to reveal since all the major characters in his account have all passed away.

    They're not "facts" until they're independently corroborated.

    Also, if Paul VI had explicit knowledge of an excommunicable offense, why would he then make Bugnini the Iranian Nuncio?
  • I don't wade into disputes too much but I have to agree with Schonbergian--we need a lot more than hearsay.

    I thought the points raised in this were all very good and knowledgeable, though there were some points where I raised an eyebrow. I have to go back though it. One odd comment or two does not detract from the valid points. They gave short shrift to the key point---to much prosecution, not enough substance. It describes Mass of the Ages Part II as a missed opportunity to explain the Mass.

    Kenneth
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gnW3AJGUUU&t=605s
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,773
    Schönbergian, without any further commentary, how many excommunicable offenses were known to Paul VI and did not result in them? Surely it did not escape you as you wrote your last comment that Paul VI oversaw the complete and utter collapse of church discipline and respect for the law.
    Thanked by 2francis tomjaw
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    I laid out the facts as they are recounted in Fr. Murr's book. Until they're disproven, or he is disqualified as a reputable eye-witness, they remain as facts in his history of the Gagnon investigation.

    Pope Paul's promotion of Archbishop Bugnini is discussed in the book as an example of the Roman policy of promoveatur ut amoveatur.

    It IS a fact that Arbp Bugnini states in his autobiography that the pope fired him because he believed that Bugnini was a Freemason. In the light of the collapse of the liturgy, to quote Ratzinger which has brought out the present "crisis of faith", some questions need to be asked:

    If our new worship was designed by an agent of those who have vowed to destroy the Church, don't we have a right to know that fact?

    If the head of the Congregation of Bishops from 1972 to 1984 was also a Freemason, and perhaps many others in the Vatican at that time, don't we have the right to see the Gagnon report and find out the full spectrum of influencers in the Vatican overseeing the reform of Catholic worship?

    Aren't these questions and the revelations of Fr. Murr ever more urgent in light of the fact that Catholics who want to worship in the traditional form are literally being thrown out of their churches and being herded into "non-parish areas" to be re-educated into accepting what may very well be Freemasonic-designed worship?

    Remember, I'm not saying Bugnini was a Freemason. What I'm saying is that Pope Paul VI, Cardinal Gagnon, Cardinal Benelli, Cardinal Oddi, Cardinal Staffa and Fr. Murr (and Interpol) thought he was a Freemason. (As an aside, I find Abp Bugnini a most fascinating figure and am greatly moved by the fact that as nuncio of Iran he apparently spent a great deal of time walking to remote places in Iran talking to people and researching the history of Christianity in Iran.)
    Thanked by 2tomjaw LauraKaz
  • francis
    Posts: 10,151
    promoveatur ut amoveatur
    one of the worst modes of operation that allows and perpetuates error, sin and scandal to be sure.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,157
    Fact: Cardinal Gagnon conducted a three year apostolic visitation of the Roman Curia from 1976 to 1979.
    Are we to suppose that in his report at the end of that he made no mention of Masonic influences to Pope John Paul II?
    Thanked by 2ServiamScores tomjaw
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,152
    Also, if Paul VI had explicit knowledge of an excommunicable offense, why would he then make Bugnini the Iranian Nuncio?
    He was banished to a tiny country, with an even tinier contingent of Catholics, and to a place where he didn’t speak the language. The going theory is that Bugnini knew too much and could have caused even worse damage if his back was to the wall, ergo, to minimize the scandal, he was sent away to rot in obscurity. Defrocking or other extreme measures might have caused him to become an even bigger problem than he already was. (Again, so goes the theory.)
    Thanked by 2JulieColl tomjaw
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Fr. Murr's book talks about Cardinal Gagnon's meeting with Pope John Paul II, and he says that in the first meeting, shortly after Pope John Paul came into office, when he presented the report to the pope, it did not seem to make a big impression on the pope. With that, Cardinal Gagnon was very discouraged, left Rome and continued his mission work in Colombia. Then, the book states that after Pope John Paul II was shot, when he came out of the anesthesia, one of the very first things he said, was "Go find Gagnon."

    Fr. Murr describes a very different second meeting in which Pope John Paul asked Cardinal Gagnon to return to Rome and work for him. Cardinal Gagnon accepted with the very same condition Cardinal Benelli gave to Pope John Paul II when he was asked to become Secretary of State: "I will come under one condition: you must fire Cardinal Baggio (the head of Congregation of Bishops since 1972 who was also believed to be a Mason)." Pope John Paul II promised he would fire Cardinal Baggio, although Fr. Murr recounts that it took two years for him to fulfill that promise.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,157
    Thank you Julie.
    On the other hand - from https://mikelewis.substack.com/p/freemasons-in-the-vatican
    Fr. Murr says that at the request of Paul VI, Cardinal Gagnon conducted a 3-year Apostolic Visitation of the entire Roman Curia in the 1970s. Originally, I presumed that such a massive undertaking was a matter of public record. It is my practice to fact check and verify sources during the writing process. While composing the original draft of my article, I wanted to verify the correct dates of this visitation. What I thought would be a quick Google search to confirm the dates (and maybe learn a little more about this significant three-year project) quickly turned into a trip down the rabbit hole of obscure traditionalist websites trying to find evidence that this visitation ever happened at all.

    I couldn’t find anything about it on official Church websites or in any mainstream or academic sources. The vast majority of mentions pointed back to a 2001 interview of Alice Von Hildebrand in Latin Mass Magazine or to Fr. Murr himself. The Visitation was also discussed in an article by Msgr. Vincent Foy, who worked for Cardinal Gagnon, but he relies primarily on Von Hildebrand’s account. Dr. Von Hildebrand died in January at the age of 98. Msgr Foy died in 2017 at the age of 101.

    I found plenty of mentions of other Apostolic Visitations in Catholic sources, academic journals, and mainstream journalistic publications (including a Visitation of the Society of St. Pius X conducted in the 1980s by Cardinal Gagnon), but nothing about this one.

    I did as thorough a search as I could, including of the Internet Archive’s Open Library, but nothing came up. I then started asking as many veteran Vatican reporters, longtime Church insiders, and Vatican theologians as I could think of. I contacted a Canadian bishop who knew Cardinal Gagnon and a Church historian and professor who wrote a biography of Paul VI. No one had ever heard about this Visitation. I even tried to contact Cardinal Ouellet (but I haven’t heard back). In all, I have reached out to roughly 30 people, and I’ve gotten responses from all but 5-6 of them. None of them had any clue what I was talking about.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,185
    There are no grave implications and it’s ‘irrelevant’?


    My Bad, very poor editing.

    In the only important regard--validity--his Masonic connex is irrelevant.

    Do I think the NO is liturgically impoverished vs the OF? Yes. Is it possible that his Masonic beliefs influenced that impoverishment? That's likely.

    Will it impair salvation? Not any more than Lust, Pride, Avarice, .........you know the list.
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 1,113
    My dad and my uncles grew up in the old form of the Mass. Neither they, nor their parents, wanted to go back to the old form. No one I know who grew up in the old form wants to go back.

    Almost all the persons going to the EF Masses today are younger. Young people rebel against what they grew up with. The next generation may very well prefer the OF (rebelling against what they grew up with.)
    Thanked by 2JulieColl LauraKaz
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 1,113
    Julie, I grew up in the Seventies. If this visitation happened, I don't remember even hearing about it. My dad was on the diocesan board and was very, very active in the Church. When the Bishop came to our town, he would have supper with us. I think I would have heard about this visitation, if it actually happened.
    Thanked by 1JulieColl
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,773
    My dad and my uncles grew up in the old form of the Mass. Neither they, nor their parents, wanted to go back to the old form. No one I know who grew up in the old form wants to go back.


    This is not good evidence of much. It's true, many Boomers want their eternal youth, but the first group is stubbornly obedient, so if they stayed, they've been conditioned to think that we can't go back… but I've met a heck of a lot of people, some who have been around for thirty-five years, who wanted only the traditional Mass, some Boomers (mostly older ones) or Silent Generation; anyone older has mostly gone on to their eternal reward at this point. That's before taking into account that people stayed until the early 1970s and then left broken by the liturgical reforms.

    Also, it doesn't take a genius (or a conspiracy, without comment on anything said here) to think that something was afoot in the 1970s, between the Congregation of Bishops and the selection of papal representatives in countries with far more Catholics than Iran; the Jadot bishops were uniquely horrible.

    Thanked by 2JulieColl tomjaw
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,157
    As a cradle Catholic who was 25 years old when VII opened I do not want to go back either to the typical Low Mass or the typical Solemn Mass of 1962 or earlier. All the words correctly express what is going on, which is a collective offering of the Holy Sacrifice by the congregation, at the hands of the celebrant. But the rubrics have been carefully devised to disguise this involvement of the congregation. The 1965 revision of the rubrics is (and was) transformative, it made clear that the priest was leading the people, they were no longer mere spectators. That certainly disturbed some people -
    ... Waugh was drawn not by ‘splendid ceremonies’ but by ‘the spectacle of the priest and his server at low Mass, stumping up to the altar … a craftsman and his apprentice; a man with a job which he alone was qualified to do’. They set to work ‘without a glance to those behind them, ... ’.
    Thanked by 1Elmar
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,773
    they were no longer mere spectators
    and in many places they weren't already. The reform did not require this. Nor was such a substantive change about which priests, prelates, and laity alike have lied to the ordinary people for over fifty years necessary to achieve any goal such as making people more than "mere spectators."

    I don't think that this is a particularly new or interesting insight. Also, Waugh doesn't speak for everybody, but what on earth is wrong with people who schedule music at the 7:30 am Mass in July and early August? That's happened to me on vacation. There's room for an early-morning low Mass on Sundays for people like Waugh. I'd also observe that I don't know what the "typical solemn Mass of 1962" could possibly be; if there was solemn Mass, not just sung Mass, the odds of singing at least some Gregorian propers versus psalm tones would have been better, if not perfect, and at least they were singing propers at all! I've seen the film of the Ushaw College solemn Mass; that was very dignified indeed, and while Cardinal Cushing was less than dignified, it's unfair to take the very worst and make it the norm. In contrast, I can totally ignore Fr Pfleger and can point to the average suburban Mass.

    Besides, I know of places where 1965 (not 1962 with modifications as is done in the monastic houses of the congregation of Solesmes) is used. I don't care for it, but it works for these people.
    Thanked by 3Elmar tomjaw JulieColl
  • I knew we’d get back to that “mere spectator” thing.

    One of you who assume that in the old Mass, the people were “mere spectators” (this is so demeaning),

    Why were bells rung at Sanctus, Consecrations, and priest’s communion, in both low and sung Masses? Just for prettiness?
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,773
    (the ICRSP, correctly, suppresses the Sanctus bell at sung Mass, since it's redundant, and I wish more trads would do this, but point taken.)
  • MarkB
    Posts: 882
    Sacrosanctum Concilium:

    48. The Church, therefore, earnestly desires that Christ's faithful, when present at this mystery of faith, should not be there as strangers or silent spectators; on the contrary, through a good understanding of the rites and prayers they should take part in the sacred action conscious of what they are doing, with devotion and full collaboration.
    Thanked by 2Elmar a_f_hawkins
  • Felicia
    Posts: 96
    If I may offer a small correction:

    "He was banished to a tiny country ..."

    Iran has an area three times as large as France, and a population of nearly 84 million. Not exactly a tiny country. It's true, though, that the number of Catholics (or any Christians) there is tiny.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,773
    though if its area is three times that of France, it's kind of tiny; France has a population of 67 million (53 million in 1974; Iran's was around 32 million), and it was not just irrelevant to Catholics, it was irrelevant to the world insofar as the last monarchical or imperial regime in Persia was collapsing at the same time, which is interesting, but Iran was no longer important in its own right, only for the possibility of what would come next.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Matthew,

    So, "small" in this case primarily means "insignificant", not "geographically miniscule"?
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,773
    I guess. I don't want to diminish Persia (Iran) and its historical importance or size, nor do I want to just double down on a mistake, but ultimately it's relevant to me that the country could apparently hold a lot more people than it did at the time.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,152
    Yes, “insignificant” (at least from a catholic perspective). And land mass means little when much of it is uninhabitable (or inhospitable at the very least).
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Elmar
    Posts: 468
    Why were bells rung at Sanctus, Consecrations, and priest’s communion, in both low and sung Masses? Just for prettiness?
    ... and not to forget at the 'Hanc Igitur', an important moment to get focused on the action at the altar / synchronising your reading in the bilingual people's missal with the silent canon.
    (another altar bells' moment which our priest recently added to our regular Sunday NO Mass - which is really odd, especially when one of the shorter Eucharistic prayers is chosen...
    Thanked by 1mmeladirectress
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,157
    The 'Hanc igitur ' bell was important:- to draw people's attention away from their rosaries in good time for the Elevation. In at least one Dublin parish - to give notice to the friar who had been leading the recitation of the rosary since the sacristy bell rang that he should prepare to pause. To suggest to those standing that they should kneel until the elevation bell had rung, and that the ushers should pause in taking up the collection. ... [I notice that Fortescue seems to know nothing of this bell.]
    Thanked by 1Elmar
  • sdtalley3sdtalley3
    Posts: 247
    I don’t know how common it is, but after the consecration I would sometimes play an elevation song. Well so as not to keep the priest from waiting for me to conclude, I asked the acolyte to give a simple ring to the bells at the minor elevation to indicate to me to wrap it up. This wasn’t a novelty to me but it worked out and had experienced different parishes ringing the bell at the minor elevation in similar fashion. Not all do this. However, now it is done without question and helps other organists as well.
    Thanked by 2Elmar tomjaw
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Going back to the "mere spectator" issue mentioned above, it is true that there are some people and lay people who, with their strange and almost fanatical opposition to the people saying the responses at Mass that pertain to them, do give the impression that they want the congregation to be "dumb and idle spectators” (cf. Pope Pius XII), BUT this is not what the rubrics of the 1962 Missal call for, as is self-evident in TLM celebrations in Europe, Mexico, and many other places where the people do sing or say the responses, including the EF Missa Cantata at my own parish in Queens, NYC.

    Rubric 272 of the 1962 Missale Romanum:

    272. Of its nature the Mass demands that all those present take part in it, after the manner proper to them.

    A choice must be made, however, among the various ways in which the faithful may take part actively in the most holy sacrifice of the Mass, in such a way that any danger of abuse may be removed, and the special aim of the participation may be realized, namely a fuller measure of worship offered to God and of edification obtained for the faithful.

    This active participation of the faithful has been dealt with at greater length in the Instruction, Sacred Music and the Sacred Liturgy, given by the Sacred Congregation of Rites on September 3, 1958.


    For a contemporary example of active participation of the congregation at an EF Low Mass, here is the livestream of today's Missa Lecta at a church in Switzerland: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrcOBdTR5SE
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,773
    @sdtalley3, that bell is a bit of an innovation apparently, but it's become customary in ICRSP churches for the reason that you describe, since their organists frequently play during the canon, so long as it is permitted by the rubrics (i.e. not during Advent or Lent except on Gaudete and Laetare Sundays at Masses of the season).

    Julie, one of the things about the dialogue Mass that gnaws at me, besides that it's an innovation, is that it's hard to implement gracefully. In France, especially in the Catholic schools that don't have state funding, children are expected to read poetry, theater, etc. and to speak aloud; even if they speak very casually with their friends, and are therefore not immune to language change, nevertheless, they know how to turn it up a notch in formal situations. They also largely master the concept of the congregation being a dull roar where no one's voice sticks out beside the server keeping people together (or the priest's, if the custom is to recite the ordinary). I prefer that the ordinary alternate in strophes like at sung Mass and that the people only respond "miserere nobis" and "dona nobis pacem" lest everything become too rushed.

    In contrast, Americans are bad at this in general.

    I agree that the people aren't mere spectators, but the way to get there is more varied, and I do think it necessary to reinforce in this thread that someone following the Mass while praying the rosary is not a mere spectator, no matter how strong our own distate for it is.
  • davido
    Posts: 700
    Participation in the texts of the mass is treated as if it is an end in itself. I think the point of it is to make sure people are invested in their religion, so that they grow in holiness. Someone thought this could be better accomplished by praying the mass texts than by saying the rosary.

    But the real issue is that the substance and the practices of the Catholic religion - now proven to be inextricably linked - were changed.
    There was always some sort of participation, whether it was reciting a rosary, singing a chorale, or remaining respectfully silent. But in overhauling the religion, the substance of what we are called to participate in has been changed.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Yes, Matthew, I agree that some training is a good idea for congregations to learn how to say the responses gracefully. That is something we implemented for our Low Mass. We had online classes so we could learn to say the responses together and with a proper cadence. It certainly can be done, and in a very short time people pick it up.

    P.S. If the clergy worldwide had obeyed the instructions in De Musica Sacra in 1957 regarding the four degrees of participation at the Low Mass and High Mass, and Rubric 272 of the 1962 Missale Romanum, would "active participation" have been such a burning issue at the Council?
  • francis
    Posts: 10,151
    I am an organist. I can pray the rosary AND follow the text of the Mass simultaneously... one is not overriding the other. It is a double prayer. (hands AND feet!)

    Another of my habits... I read all the propers and meditate on them while sitting in the pew before Mass... Then I am aware of the readings and what they say BEFORE they are read aloud.

    Also, when I HEAR the Mass spoken in Latin, I am hearing it as all who have gone on before me... in this simple military like practice, a mystical connection happens that cannot happen any other way.

    Don't short change the ways that people can benefit from religion.

    When my heart is beating alone for Jesus, Mary and Joseph, I am in full active and conscience participation.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Certainly, nobody should be forced to pray a certain way at a traditional Latin Mass or any Catholic liturgical celebration, but for those who want to participate by singing or saying the responses, that opportunity should be provided, and silence should not be imposed on them.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,151
    I once had a congregation of 400 who sang five settings of the Mass from the Kyriale at full voice. I accompanied them on the 8' principal to hold them together as the church was half a block long. It was the charism of the parish. But then, one must understand the term charism. That is not going to occur in very many places.

    charism
    noun

    Eccles., a special spiritual gift or power divinely conferred, as on the early Christians.A miraculously given power, as of healing, speaking foreign languages without instruction, etc., attributed to some of the early Christians.A power or authority, generally of a spiritual nature, believed to be a freely given gift by the grace of God.
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,465
    Francis, it would appear this was the praxis in ancient times, as Pope Pius X stated in Tra le sollecitudini, so it certainly could and should become the common praxis again.

    "Special efforts are to be made to restore the use of the Gregorian Chant by the people, so that the faithful may again take a more active part in the ecclesiastical offices, as was the case in ancient times."
  • Serviam,

    I, too, have an Anthony (William) who is my oldest and a Claire (Frances). Small world!
    I am sorry for your losses.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,152
    Francis, I agree that some parishes have a particular charism to sing. I've done an awful lot to foster singing at my current post, but these people can't hold a candle to the little country parish I used to play for. Those famers and small-town folk would raise the roof, and were eager and willing to sing whatever I put in front of them. On more than one occasion, with particular barnburners, I sat at the organ crying while accompanying them, because the sound of these people filled my soul with such peace and joy.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,157
    JulieColl - you are right to correct me about the 1962 rubrics. I confess that I never bought a 1962 Missal as the 1925? copy I had, & have, served adequately for a PiP, or for a server (in the 60s I could remember all the changes even when they revised the vernacular almost month by month). The 1962 Missal had rubrics revised in the light of the Liturgical Movement, the first substantial change since the 1570 was revised to allow for a tabernacle on the altar.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,457
    I see once again we have criticism of mute spectators. At the foot of the Cross we had mute spectators, but their participation was as important as those that spoke the few words that have been recorded. We should remember the Blessed Virgin Mary was a mute spectator, but is described as a co-redemptrix. No one could suggest her contribution was lesser because it was not spoken.

    The Mass of course is partly a re-enactment of the last few days of the life of Our Blessed Lord, His Death and Resurrection. It should be considered that it is just as important to pray quietly the Mass, as it is to try to say the responses louder than our neighbour.

    I am in Switzerland at the moment where the Missa Lecta is prevalent, is it an improvement to parts of England where the Missa Lecta is rare?
    I notice that my boys that happily rush to serve at Low Mass in England where they must say the responses for all, are not so interested, they become mute spectators in Switzerland. In England we have large and devoted serving teams, I notice that in Switzerland is lacking in the same fervour.

    If we have the congregation making the responses as one, we exclude those who prefer to pray silently.

    If we have a congregation that sings the Ordinary we exclude the Polyphonic settings, that are as much part of the glory of the Church as the Gregorian settings.

    How do we accommodate the differences in how people pray... Over the last century clerics and other experts have tried to regulate how the people pray. Never before has such effort been put into forcing people to conform to a certain style of prayer...

    I note that never before have our churches been emptied so effectively of the Faithful without the threat of death. Never before have we had so many of our young people reject a worship style and flee our churches. Could it be they reject the reforms? Should we go back to a tried and trusted formula? Were the experts wrong?
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,157
    My criticism is not of mute spectators, it is of clerics who require me to be a mute spectator.
    [My fumbling attempt to describe -] During Mass the priest is acting in persona Christi to carry us spiritually into the presence of the (once-for-all) Holy Sacrifice and to a foretaste of the heavenly banquet. What that requires of the rest of us is close attention. But before the Mass of the Faithful there is the Mass of the Catechumens which, as the name suggests, is an opportunity for instruction. Trent explicitly stated "the mass contains great instruction for the faithful people" and commanded that the opportunity not be lost "that the sheep of Christ may not suffer hunger". By failing to show any distinction, other than his position on the altar, between the Sacrifice and the Readings, the celebrant at Low Mass of my childhood threw away this opportunity, reducing the readings also to low key spectacle, and blurring an essential distinction.
    [Purple to draw sting] In some ways the 1570 onwards Solemn Mass is worse, since it required the celebrant to say a Low Mass while others performed a musical show by repeating parts of it in elaborate song.
  • davido
    Posts: 700
    What is unfortunate about all of this is the attitude that the Liturgical Mvt has created and which comes through in the above comment: the mass “should” be this way, or the mass “should” be that way. Instead of “this is the mass as it was handed to me, let me enter into it and learn what it is.”
    More and more I feel that this is the essence of Christianity: to accept God, to enter into his life, to be transformed by him.
    No matter which mass I am attending, this seems what we are called to do. However, the great liturgical rupture prevents the mass from being part of this acceptance of God, because we know that the new liturgy was created to be a particular (novel) brand of Catholicism, instead of the historic brand.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw LauraKaz
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,157
    What is handed on is handed on by fallible human beings. Had I become a priest I hope I would have modelled my missa privata on the piety of Fr G and not on the 'get it over with' approach of Fr K. As for 'doing it by the book', we know that 1570 is based on the Curial Low Mass, so has no pastoral concern, I have read but not checked that the Burchard curial rubrics were simply adjusted by eliminating the few references to a congregation. That was not what Trent had called for, they laid emphasis both on some intellectual food for the congregation and the desirability of general communion from the elements consecrated at that Mass. In Germany they tried to repair the missal deficiencies by singing vernacular paraphrases of the texts. In France they encouraged the prône describing at length the substance of the texts. In English speaking countries I know of nothing comparable, we got just the 1570>>1920 with nothing to advocate engagement of the congregation. Of course some bishops recognized the problems, without American bishops pushing, Rome would not have conceded the missa cantata, or the use of the Asperges where there was no chapter.