What do you think was the single most damaging "innovation" of past 60 years?

francis

Theologically, doctrinally and practically speaking, replacing The Mass with the NO. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi has been subverted. It's all falling dominoes from that point on.

Here's an interesting article by a priest who observes this very fact.

http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2013/07/14/lex-orandi-lex-credendi-lex-vivendi-lex-provendi/

Liam

It's an assertion. Not a fact.

Jeffrey Quick

6. The abject, deliberate, and proudful failure to learn about vernacular liturgy from certain folk (you know who I mean) who had been at it for five hundred years.

THIS. ^
"But thees and thous and words like "vouchsafe"!"

johnmann

The liturgy was rife with abuse prior to the reforms and many of the reforms were accommodations to keep large populations from perpetuating a culture of abuse. The vernacular, "active participation," and 4-hymn sandwich were inevitable.

I too would probably pick versus populum as the most damaging development though it was never forbidden. I wish it were explicitly mandated unless the architecture made it impossible.

The plethora of options, the ad lib allowances, abandoning of Communion rails, less dignified translations, and lack of Graduale Romanum translations are the other damaging developments. There are other developments I can quibble with but not because they're "damaging."

ClergetKubisz

The liturgy was rife with abuse prior to the reforms and many of the reforms were accommodations to keep large populations from perpetuating a culture of abuse. The vernacular, "active participation," and 4-hymn sandwich were inevitable.

Accommodating such communities is not the way to keep them from perpetuating abuses.

bhcordova

The single most damaging innovation since Vatican II is the nuns & sisters not wearing their habits.

Chris Garton-Zavesky

inevitable

Where's that picture of Inigo Montoya when you need it?

Salieri

What do you think was the single most damaging "innovation" of past 60 years?

In general: the Smart Phone.

M. Jackson Osborn

...learn about vernacular liturgy from certain folk (you know who I mean) who had been at it for five hundred years.

These are, of course, my own words - but it just occurred to me that these 'certain folk' are not the only ones who have been at it for five hundred years. In addition to the Anglicans there are the Orthodox (both Catholic ones and not), who have been at it not for five hundred years, but two thousand! This has not occasioned them falling into the disgusting liturgical abuse that has been rife in the west since VII. Truth be known, this abuse has been around a lot longer than VII in our western world: to wit: operatic masses, parody masses, see-how-fast-you-can-say-it masses, gushy Victorian hymnody, and so on. In Italy (and most other places as well) much of the music of the later XIXth century had all the dignity of circus music, with organs being quite commonly fitted out with cymbals and drums! And this was in days when vernacular was hardly so much as dreamed of except by prescient men of the liturgical reform movement. Is this a failure of western spiritual aesthesis? Our orthodox (and most [but not all] Anglicans) seem to know better than alarming numbers of our clueless western Catholics. It is an irony indeed, that our Church, the Church Catholic, which (often with more than a tinge of spiritual pride) maintains that it is the only Christian entity which is the True, Whole, Heresy-free Church, offers to its Lord (so commonly as to be ordinary) worship which really doesn't come anywhere, anywhere!, near to being worshipful and, in the most profound sense of the word, charismatic. The psalmist says, and Anglicans love to quote him, 'O worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness'. All too too many Catholics have no idea at all, or even care, what that means. But vernacular is not, objectively and intrinsically, inherently, to blame. Large swaths of our people are liturgically at sea, as are too many who are made bishops, and too many of the priests whom they ordain.

BruceL

I feel like the revised funeral liturgy has to be up there. While I realize that there was a desire to change the focus of things to be more "hopeful" (whether or not you agree or not), but in fact it seems it has lost much of the focus of the funeral Mass (praying for the deceased).

MaryAnn Carr Wilson

Bruce- I agree that the innovations regarding the OF funeral rites have got to be high on the list. I haven't wanted to chime in on this thread but in your post we see how what we do as musicians and the rubrics and options regarding sacred music can affect practice and belief.

I regularly serve as choir director or cantor/soloist for both OF and EF funerals. The two are observed so differently that they could easily seem like two distinct sects within the Church.

Perhaps that's one area where so many "externals" add up to, as you say, a loss of focus. So true.

The EF requiem has plenty of hope. And it has enough real language about death to help attendees pray for the soul of the deceased, actually grieve (!) and individuals reflect on their own passing. One needs only to *pray* all the texts.

Perhaps I've just been distressed by too many OF funerals where I've been asked to sing a chippe responsorial psalm, often in song form, then a rousing alleluia, and asked to encourage jubilant singing from grieving family members twenty feet away, who look at me with bewilderment and/ or resentment.

The impression is that genuine pastoral needs are not being met. Most often, in my area at least, the soul of the deceased is hardly prayed for, the grieving family is cajoled into rejoicing, and the attendees are given very little space for reflection, thinking they've been to a mini canonization.

Reform of the OF funeral rites is needed to better meet these pastoral needs.

CharlesW

The funeral rites in the west took a morbid turn after the devastation of the Black Death. There was a legitimate desire after the council to put more emphasis on the resurrection and less on sin and eternal punishment. Unfortunately, the balance between the two which should have been part of the reforms was completely lost. We went from one extreme to the other. Both EF and OF funeral rites are still in need of reform 50+ years later.

BruceL

Well said, MaryAnn. I was not trying to categorize the EF requiem as lacking in hope, just presenting the reformers' thoughts on the issue. I agree that it is fine. I can see where you might allow an option for the Alleluia in place of the tract (the alleluia is evidently more ancient) and things like that, but the whole celebration is much richer, to the point that I really would prefer my funeral to be an EF if possible. Hopefully that's not too soon!

The OF rites do seem (from a convert's perspective) to "cave in" to the postmodern uncomfortableness with mourning and any sort of travail. It's as if we say, "Let's ignore the fact that this is what it is, and just party". I have always felt that, of all the new "rites, etc." in the wake of the council, the OF funeral seems the most contrived.

MaryAnn Carr Wilson

In total agreement, Bruce. And I am asking all my musician friends to please offer the traditional requiem for me. I need the prayers. And all the verbiage about eternal rest is also more and more appealing! :)
And I didn't think you held the position that the EF requiem is lacking in joy. Just making the point about how much joy and resurrection discussion is in the prayers when one reads all of the texts.

johnmann

https://youtu.be/cTjHf77FqTI?t=5657

Christopher Hitchens: "They've thrown away a pearl richer than all their tribe."
Richard Dawkins: "Absolutely."
Hitchens: "They don't even know what they've got. It's terrible. If I was a lapsed Catholic and I brooded about how I wanted my funeral to be which is not something I would..."
Daniel Dennett: "You would want the Latin Mass."
Hitchens: "Yes."
Dennett: "Absolutely."
Hitchens: "I want a proper Tridentine."
....
Hitchens: "We didn't do this to them.... We leave it to the pious to destroy churches."

BruceL

MA: I know, just setting the record straight! :)

advocatus

Electronic mediation of all sound sources in the liturgy.

canadash

The movie "Sister Act."

Salieri

In case anyone thought I was being facetious with my above remark about smartphones:

TCJ

That reminds me of something: concelebrated Masses, particularly when a diocese yanks ALL the non-retired priests from their parishes for a week so they can have one giant concelebrated Mass with 100 priests present while their parishes languish with communion services presided over by female wanna-be priests. Oh, joy!

M. Jackson Osborn

The 'spirit' of Vatican II.

(Not to be confused with Vatican II.)

JulieColl

Poor Guido. My heart goes out to him. That being said, I really believe the papal liturgies were so much more dignified this time around, and it's no doubt due to his influence. Just the fact that the "Benedictine" altar arrangement is now almost de rigueur is probably to his credit. The papal Masses in the U.S. were overall a sign of hope to me (oops, wrong thread!) and were a model for American parishes to follow.

melofluent

src="http://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/uploads/FileUpload/a0/15397a2b21d1c0f2f6357ff5e39eb8.jpg" />

madorganist

Francis is right; the single most damaging innovation of the past 60 years is the novus ordo Missae itself, which, in comparison with the traditional Latin Mass, is seen to be deficient as an expression of the Catholic faith. Before the introduction of the new rite, I believe the most damaging innovation was the dialogue Mass, which cultivated a Protestant mentality. As far as I can tell, speaking in chorus - not to be confused with congregational singing - was never a part of Catholic worship before the 20th century liturgical movement. Someone please provide a reference to prove me wrong! When the Mass is conceived of as a dialogue, it's only natural for the celebrant to face the people, even when this means destroying the altar and tearing out the communion rail to make room. The celebrant makes his Communion standing and placing the Host in his mouth with his own hand. If it's not irreverent when he does it, how can it be irreverent for the people of God to do likewise, if they are equal partners in the liturgical dialogue?

JulieColl

I believe the most damaging innovation was the dialogue Mass, which cultivated a Protestant mentality. As far as I can tell, speaking in chorus - not to be confused with congregational singing - was never a part of Catholic worship before the 20th century liturgical movement. Someone please provide a reference to prove me wrong!

I don't know for certain when the practice of Low Masses for the people became the norm, but it is certainly a fact that in earlier times the entire congregation would sing the responses at Mass. Pope Pius XI in Divini Cultus:

At Milan, Saint Ambrose was accused by heretics of attracting the crowds by means of liturgical chants. It was due to these that Saint Augustine made up his mind to become a Christian. It was in the churches, finally, where practically the whole city formed a great joint choir, that the workers, builders, artists, sculptors and writers gained from the Liturgy that deep knowledge of theology which is now so apparent in the monuments of the Middle Ages

.

Pope Pius XI in the same document also said:

In order that the faithful may more actively participate in divine worship, let them be made once more to sing the Gregorian Chant, so far as it belongs to them to take part in it. It is most important that when the faithful assist at the sacred ceremonies or when pious sodalities take part with the clergy in a procession, they should not be merely detached and silent spectators, but, filled with a deep sense of the beauty of the Liturgy, they should sing alternately with the clergy or the choir, as it is prescribed. If this is done, then it will no longer happen that the people either make no answer at all to the public prayers -- whether in the language of the Liturgy or in the vernacular -- or at best utter the responses in a low and subdued manner.

(My emphasis)

It would seem that Pope Pius XI was most concerned that the people not be silent and make no answer at all, or "utter the responses in a low and subdued manner", so he obviously wanted them to respond to the prayers of the Liturgy, whether sung or said.

Also, Pope Pius X in Tra le sollecitudini said:

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.

The Pope mentions that "in ancient times" the faithful took an active part in the liturgy and his concern was that chant be "restored" to the people. The main point is, that the preconciliar popes did not want the faithful being “detached and silent spectators" (Pope Pius XI, Divini cultus), “outsiders or mute onlookers" (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei), “strangers”(Pope Pius XII, De musica sacra) “mute spectators" (Pope Pius XII, De musica sacra), “dumb and idle spectators".

As far as I know, the preconciliar popes didn't distinguish between Low Masses or High Masses---when the faithful were at Mass they did not want them to be silent or make inaudible responses.

JulieColl

P.S. Actually, it seems to me that if you want to go against the teaching and disciplinary mandates of Popes Pius X, XI and XII, as well as the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, as well as that of Pope St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI regarding the people saying or singing in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass that pertain to them, then I'm left with only one question for you: Who's the Protestant?

I realize that we're all capable of making up the rules as we go along, and we're all capable of adhering only to those things we want to adhere to, but isn't that the very essence of Protestantism?

Now here's an example for you: do you seriously want to make the case that the SSPX seminarians at this Dialogue Mass in Flavigny, France are engaging in Protestant behavior?

But really, if some want to come out and say we should listen to Moses and not Jesus on the matter of divorce, I guess it's open season for someone to come out with the novel theory that someone saying the responses at the traditional Latin Mass is somehow engaging in Protestant behavior. The best I can say to that is Michael Davies' old line: "It's a point of view."

madorganist

JulieColl, you've misunderstood what I wrote:

As far as I can tell, speaking in chorus - not to be confused with congregational singing - was never a part of Catholic worship before the 20th century liturgical movement.

My reference to the dialogue Mass concerns speaking in chorus, NOT congregational singing, which is the ancient and traditional method of vocal participation in the liturgy. As far as I can tell, speaking is chorus was an innovation borrowed from Protestantism. I think history bears witness to this when one reads about the innovations of the 20th-century liturgical movement. Subsequent approval by a Pope doesn't change history. The OP's question was about the most damaging innovation, and I have stated my opinion. Others in this thread have criticized various other practices which began as abuses and were later tolerated or encouraged by Popes, some of which were revivals of practices in the ancient Church. As far as I know, based on everything I've read about the history of the liturgy - which is a considerable amount - there were no spoken responses by the whole congregation, rather only sung/chanted responses, in Catholic worship from the time the New Testament was written until the 20th century.

The quotes you provided concern sung/chanted responses at High Mass and are irrelevant to the opinion I offered concerning the dialogue Mass. You might want to take a look at the Wikipedia article on Low Mass: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Mass
I didn't watch the video you shared, but surely seminarians would be capable of learning the chants for a High Mass or else praying silently while the server makes the responses on their behalf. So yes, I would say there is a (probably completely unconscious) Protestant mentality at work to think spoken responses are preferable to sung responses. Catholic liturgy would be better off with choral or congregational singing rather than prayers spoken in unison, whether in the liturgical language or the vernacular. When there is no singing, let one or two servers make the responses alone on behalf of the people. I state this as my opinion, based on historical facts, without any desire to condemn those who disagree as heretics!

DISCLAIMER: I am neither prepared for nor interested in debating all of the points contained in the following articles. I provide these links only as points of reference concerning the history of the dialogue Mass.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f073_Dialogue_1.htm
http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/dialogue.pdf
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2012/09/editorial-note-dialogue-mass.html

M. Jackson Osborn

The points that mad makes cannot be overemphasised in their importance regarding a truly Catholic liturgical practice. Ancient writers and the unbroken practice of the Orthodox make it clear that there was no spoken dialogue and no spoken praises at any time in the Church's history.... until!.... the late mediaeval practice of increasing numbers of priests saying their private masses at a multiplicity of side chapels (and, it should be noticed, that such masses were not thought of as public worship, which continued to conform to the totally sung ancient norm). Then came the reformation and the Protestant aversion to the singing and chanting which was the norm amongst Catholics. So, yes, spoken worship, spoken chorus, is a innovation of late medieavel private mass practice and of Protestant avoidance of what remained the norm in Catholic public worship.

There is a certain irony about the Protestant (Lutheran and Anglican excepted) antipathy to sung liturgy. As is well known, the goal of many early Protestants was to return to what they thought were early Christian norms. If they had known better, this goal would have led them to the very singing that they abhorred.

Ditto, many of the 'reformers' of the post-Vatican II era. They too thought that they were returning to ancient simplicity when, in fact, they imposed on us norms that would have been thought bizarre in the early Church. They forbad, hated, discouraged, and all but abolished the very liturgical practices which were most ancient, all the while convinced that they were returning to ancient ways, ways which weren't at all very ancient!

JulieColl

Low Masses, unless I'm mistaken, only became the norm in Masses for the people after medieval times, but I'm not prepared to concede that the people did not say the responses at Low Masses. If there was always silence at the Low Mass why did Pope Pius XI in Divini Cultus (in 1928) urge the faithful not to "utter the responses in a low and subdued manner"? Utter is not the same as singing or chanting, I think you'll agree.

On what possible basis, though, can you say that the people who sing the responses at the 9 am Missa Cantata are acting like Catholics, but the people who utter, "Et cum spiritu tuo, " at the 10:30 Low Mass are acting like Protestants?

On what possible basis, other than your own (as erudite as it is) opinion, can you possibly defend that position? Are you prepared to argue that Popes Pius XI and XII and Arbp. Lefebrve, among others, were introducing a Protestant custom at Low Mass?

I'm wondering how it can be a Protestant custom if the Protestants don't even have the Mass? Are you aware that Vatican II's schema on the Constitution on the Liturgy was the only one of the preconciliar schemas that was not thrown out in the opening days of the Council, precisely because it had the broad support of liberals, conservatives, traditionalists and everyone in between? Are you prepared to say that over 2000 Council Fathers voted for a document that was advocating Protestant praxis in the Liturgy?

Are you prepared to say that Archbishop Lefebrve voted for a document that advocated a Protestant practice in the liturgy?

As for the links you shared, let's start with the easiest one: Rorate Caeli. Are you aware that Rorate published recently an article on the different degrees of participation allowed in the Mass by Pope Pius XII's De musica sacra? As for traditio.com, I cannot even imagine what the people on the Musica Sacra forum if they followed that link and saw what was routinely published there. As for traditioninaction.com, I would just note that it's not surprising that gentleman is against the Dialogue Mass, because if you go on his website you can find multiple books on things the Church has done that he is against so he's hardly a reputable source on Catholic liturgy.

So,, to close where we began, I would respectfully argue that the essence of Protestantism lies in rejecting the disciplinary practice of the Church. So if you want to argue that what the preconciliar and postconciliar Popes have advocated, along with the practice of the Society of St. Pius X, is Protestant, then you'll have to do more 'splainin' besides sending links from the two sources above which cannot be considered sources in union with the Magisterium and discipline of the Catholic Church.

In other words, you're trying to prove a practice is Protestant by, in effect, quoting people who are not in union with the Catholic Church as your sources, who are protesting, I might add, what the Catholic Church has decreed is lawful and proper. Lastly, please remember that Sacrosanctum Concilium says that our participation in the liturgy is not based on a concession of the Church, but rather is based on our baptism in which we have a sharing in the royal priesthood of Christ.

noel jones, aago

"Arbp. Lefebrve, among others, were introducing a Protestant custom at Low Mass?" that was never a topic of discussion when I had dinner with him each night while he was staying in NYC at the rectory in the late 1960's.

Julie, I love what you are saying, but having lived through that time, I can tell you in the in the USA during Low Mass in the 1950's the altar boys memorized the responses and the congregation said nothing during Low Mass.

Now there may have pockets where this was not the practice but I believe that if so, they were rare.

A German friend reminded me of this when she said she wanted to come and hear Mass.

ryand

As far as I know, based on everything I've read about the history of the liturgy - which is a considerable amount

JulieColl

Noel, I'll bet you had some really sparkling dinner conversations with Msgr. Lefebrve. : ) From everything I've read about him he was said to be very kind and charming in person. What kinds of things did you talk about?

Thanks for the notes about the preconciliar praxis of silent Low Masses. Your description matches that of many other people so it was no doubt very widespread, at least in the U.S.

Not for nothing, but I think it's a gigantic leap to claim that Protestant services were the inspiration for the Liturgical Movement's efforts to teach the people to say the responses at the Low Mass. What is far more likely, in my opinion, is that the monastic founders of the Liturgical Movement simply wanted the people to learn to respond to the prayers of the priest as written in their missals and prescribed as belonging to the people---in the same way that they wanted the people to learn to chant the responses at the Sung Mass and at Vespers and Compline.

http://www.gloria.tv/?media=83699

Madorganist, I hope you can take a look at the video above which is of an EF Low Mass (La messe basse) at the SSPX seminary in Flavigny, France. This is a model demonstration of the "Dialogue Mass" and you can see how the priest in the video follows the prescriptions of De Musica Sacra exactly, saying the prayers in a clear voice and an unhurried manner so the faithful can respond properly. The congregation recites all the prayers said by the servers, including the Confiteor.

Can someone please explain to me how this model of the traditional Latin Mass is a dangerous Protestant innovation?

madorganist

The practice of a congregation making spoken responses in common has a history of less than 100 years as far as the Catholic Mass is concerned - in all of Church history, not just modern times.

Low Masses, unless I'm mistaken, only became the norm in Masses for the people after medieval times, but I'm not prepared to concede that the people did not say the responses at Low Masses. If there was always silence at the Low Mass why did Pope Pius XI in Divini Cultus (in 1928) urge the faithful not to "utter the responses in a low and subdued manner"? Utter is not the same as singing or chanting, I think you'll agree.

Look at this in context:

In order that the faithful may more actively participate in divine worship, let them be made once more to sing the Gregorian Chant, so far as it belongs to them to take part in it. It is most important that when the faithful assist at the sacred ceremonies, or when pious sodalities take part with the clergy in a procession, they should not be merely detached and silent spectators, but, filled with a deep sense of the beauty of the Liturgy, they should sing alternately with the clergy or the choir, as it is prescribed. If this is done, then it will no longer happen that the people either make no answer at all to the public prayers -- whether in the language of the Liturgy or in the vernacular -- or at best utter the responses in a low and subdued manner.

You seem to have inferred from the word utter that spoken congregational responses were common (at least in some places) in 1928. Would you also infer that vernacular responses were common at that time?

I think it's a gigantic leap to claim that Protestant services were the inspiration for the Liturgical Movement's efforts to teach the people to say the responses at the Low Mass. What is far more likely, in my opinion, is that the monastic founders of the Liturgical Movement simply wanted the people to learn to respond to the prayers of the priest as written in their missals and prescribed as belonging to the people---in the same way that they wanted the people to learn to chant the responses at the Sung Mass and at Vespers and Compline.

Some of the Liturgical Movement leaders were not interested in the High Mass and saw it as an obstacle to the participation of the people. Their focus was on a dialogue Mass with vernacular hymns.

Madorganist, I hope you can take a look at the video above which is of an EF Low Mass (La messe basse) at the SSPX seminary in Flavigny, France. This is a model demonstration of the "Dialogue Mass" and you can see how the priest in the video follows the prescriptions of De Musica Sacra exactly, saying the prayers in a clear voice and an unhurried manner so the faithful can respond properly. The congregation recites all the prayers said by the servers, including the Confiteor.

No doubt, this is a model dialogue Mass, but it is still an innovation! The people traditionally did not take any vocal part in the Low Mass, and the priest said the prayers in a low enough tone of voice to be inaudible to the congregation. Personally, I started out with an open mind toward the dialogue Mass. When I experienced it, I found it very distracting. At Low Mass, I get a lot more out of meditating on the mysteries of the Rosary than making responses. I strongly prefer the traditional silent Low Mass. When I want to make responses, I go to High Mass. (As I'm emphatically not a morning person, that's usually not the case at 7:00 a.m.!)

It is the change in mentality, not the spoken dialogue per se, that is dangerous. When the people lose sight of what's going on at the altar - namely, the priest offering sacrifice on behalf of the people - and come to think of the liturgy as a conversation between the celebrant and congregation, it leads to the other innovations and the Protestant mentality I mentioned above. Singing and silence are both safeguards against this. No doubt, the seminarians at Flavigny are insulated on account of their regular participation in the High Mass as well as their formation as a whole. The dialogue Mass is no substitute for the High Mass and, in my personal opinion, no improvement over the silent Low Mass. You are certainly free to disagree, but no amount of quotations from 20th-century papal or conciliar writings is likely to change my opinion, which is formed by my own experience, my own attraction in prayer, and my knowledge of the liturgy, including the 20th-century Liturgical Movement, as well as my acquaintance with other traditional Catholics who are also opposed to the innovation known as the dialogue Mass.

PaxMelodious

Most damaging - to what, exactly?

The "thing" that was most damaging thing to the faith lives of Catholic people in the last 60 years was most certainly not an innovation.

CHGiffen

That's why "innovation" is in quotation marks.

JulieColl

Madorganist, I really, really appreciate the heartfelt nature of your response, but I would still respectfully disagree with you on a number of counts. The nature of your argument boils down to three points:

1) You don't like the Dialogue Mass. I get that.

2) Other traditional Catholics you know don't like the Dialogue Mass, either.

3) The Dialogue Mass was new about 100 years ago and no matter what the preconciliar and postconciliar popes (including all the bishops of the Church at the Vatican Council) have taught regarding it, your response is, "I don't care. This was at one point "new" so I'm not going along with it."

If we were going to submit this to a jury, I'm afraid your case would be considered a little light on substance.

I'm sure you're aware of this, but the Last Supper did not start with Psalm 42 and was not said in Latin, nor was Jesus wearing a fiddleback chasuble and biretta, so if the essence of your argument is (after "I don't like this") "It is new", then I would submit to you that there are probably many things in the EF that you no doubt like and would go to the guillotine for (and I would, too) that were also "new" at one point or another in the Church's history.

So if you want to play the "this is new and therefore bad" card, we might as well throw out most of the 1962 Missal and rubrics (since those were also "new" at one point).

Now, besides that fact, you have another problem with your case as I see it It has already been adjudicated, and I'm afraid your side lost.

Not only did you lose once, but you've lost multiple times, and I'm afraid your argument has lost at the highest levels of the Church every single time. You lost with Pius XI (Divini cultus); you lost with Pope Pius XII (De musica sacra); you lost with John XXIII (he codified De musica sacra into the rubrics of the 1962 Missal); you lost at Vatican II (Sacrosanctum Concilium); you lost with John Paul II (Vigesimus Quintus Annus), and with Benedict XVI who made no secret of his deep attachment to the original Liturgical Movement----and you lost with Pope Francis (Cardinal Sarah, the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship appointed by Pope Francis, called Sacrosanctum Concilium the "magna carta" of all liturgical celebrations.)

Now, aside from the fact that there is not a shred of magisterial support for your position and in fact your position has been contradicted officially at every turn, you can still take refuge in your own experience, and that is perfectly valid and legitimate, but I'm afraid you can't even appeal to the SSPX for support because on their very own website they contradict your opinion.

So, in the end, you're left with your own preference, and at least that's something. However, apropos your own preference, I'm afraid that doesn't even stand up, since His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger told the pilgrims gathered at the Ecclesia Dei 10th Anniversary at Rome that in those countries where the Liturgical Movement had been strong prior to the Council, there was fierce protest when the traditional Latin Mass was taken away. However, in those countries where the Liturgical Movement was not strong (i.e., where they were following your experiential preference) there was hardly a whimper of protest when the traditional Latin Mass was taken away.

In closing, in my own experience in my diocese, wherever the silent Low Mass returned (from 1988 on) there is now hardly anyone at all who still attends it so I'm afraid your position is an increasingly lonely one. All that being said, I do understand the appeal of the Low Mass and wish it were available to me locally during the week, but I think the quiet prayerful responses of the seminarians in the Flavigny video are an ideal example of the Mass as a celebration of the Eucharist "as a rite of brotherhood in responsory dialogue."

Here's one last quote to ponder: Cardinal Ratzinger, who can rightfully be regarded as the protector and liberator of the traditional Latin Mass, explained the nature of the Mass very beautifully in his book The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood:

The recognition that ekklesia (Church) and adelphotes (brotherhood) are the same thing, that the Church that fulfills herself in the celebration of the Eucharist as essentially a community of brothers, compels us to celebrate the Eucharist as a rite of brotherhood in responsory dialogue---and not to have a lonely hierarchy facing a group of laymen each one of whom is shut off in his own missal or other devotional book. The Eucharist must again become visibly the sacrament of brotherhood in order to be able to achieve its full, community-creating power.

CharlesW

I'm sure you're aware of this, but the Last Supper did not start with Psalm 42 and was not said in Latin, nor was Jesus wearing a fiddleback chasuble and biretta,

WHAT?? IS OUTRAGE! HERESY!!

noel jones, aago

JulieColl...a little tough on MadOrganist there, eh?

While taxiing at LaGuardia the crew of a US Air flight departing for Ft. Lauderdale made a wrong turn and came nose to nose with a United 727.

The irate female ground controller lashed out at the US Air crew, screaming: "US Air 2771, where are you going? I told you to turn right onto Charlie taxiway! You turned right on Delta! Stop right there. I know it's difficult for you to tell the difference between C's and D's, but get it right!"

Continuing her tirade to the embarrassed crew, she was now shouting hysterically: "God, you've screwed everything up! It'll take forever to sort this out! You stay right there and don't move till I tell you to! You can expect progressive taxi instructions in about half an hour and I want you to go exactly where I tell you, when I tell you, and how I tell you! You got that, US Air 2771?"

"Yes ma'am," the humbled crew responded.

Naturally the ground control frequency went terribly silent after the verbal bashing of US Air 2771. Nobody wanted to engage the irate ground controller in her current state. Tension in every cockpit at LGA was running high.

Then an unknown pilot broke the silence and asked, "Wasn't I married to you once?"

noel jones, aago

I strongly prefer the traditional silent Low Mass.

So do I.

francis

It's about the sacrifice... Not the brotherhood

Richard Mix

Ok, next time I commit my safety to an airplane I'll try to remember to add a prayer for female traffic controllers to just lighten up on male pilots. Not that anyone in our circles has issues with women!

melofluent

Before consigning female air traffic controllers to a spot on your prayer list while traveling, I suggest you view the film "Pushing Tin." No matter how little we make $wise in our profession, no way would I willingly have chosen that career. Egads.

M. Jackson Osborn

Reducing madorganist's argument to the old 'oh, so you don't like the.....' is rather disingenuous. He said nothing at all about whether he did or didn't 'like it'. He argued what, objectively, was wrong with it. I've yet to see a cogent counter argument. Many people 'like' things that are fundamentally wrong - such as the sort of liturgia under discussion here. And, it's quite possible that, though he skillfully has laid bare the faults and errors of this praxis, he, yet, likes it. Whether or not he does like it he has not said. He has only given evidence of good judgment, not of liking or disliking.

Liam

Madorganist's argument - insofar as the Protestant angle is involved - is very limited. Even conceding arguendo his narrow point about the *Mass" - Catholic congregations have spoken in chorus in church in public acts of worship, which are not limited to the Mass. It's not a Protestant thing as such.

madorganist

JulieColl:

If we were going to submit this to a jury, I'm afraid your case would be considered a little light on substance.

Fortunately for me, I'm not being called upon to testify regarding my liturgical opinions ;)

So if you want to play the "this is new and therefore bad" card, we might as well throw out most of the 1962 Missal and rubrics (since those were also "new" at one point).

Evaluating innovations requires a value judgment. Does the innovation in question add or subtract to/from the spirituality and beauty of the liturgy? Is it a distraction? Although I think it's prudent to view all liturgical innovations with suspicion, I would never adopt the attitude that something is bad solely because it's new. Let the thing be judged on its own merits.

Liam:

Catholic congregations have spoken in chorus in church in public acts of worship, which are not limited to the Mass.

If by "public acts of worship" you mean the liturgy, then I'm not sure what you're talking about. The only examples I can think of are either non-liturgical, such as the Stations of the Cross, the Rosary, a novena, or devotions such as the Divine Praises added after Benediction, or else not involving a congregation of laypeople in the sense under discussion here, e.g. clerics reading the Divine Office in common without chant. Would you mind elaborating?

WGS

Homilies Instead of Sermons

My recollection from earlier days was that the pastor would preach on a subject for as many weeks or months as necessary. - e.g. The Lord's Prayer, The Sacraments, Parts of the Mass, An Encyclical, The Catechism, etc.

Thus, in a span of a few years, all parishioners would be exposed to the basic Teachings of the Church.

Now, at each Mass, the celebrant is constrained to find something interesting to say about the readings assigned to that particular Mass.

So, in accord with the current praxis, there is no continuing emphasis on the Teachings of the Church.

tomjaw

You lost with Pius XI (Divini cultus); you lost with Pope Pius XII (De musica sacra); you lost with John XXIII (he codified De musica sacra into the rubrics of the 1962 Missal); you lost at Vatican II (Sacrosanctum Concilium); you lost with John Paul II (Vigesimus Quintus Annus)

As I said on this forum elsewhere, "A handful of clergy in Rome have spent the last century looking out into the congregation during Mass, and have spent far too much time worrying about what the congregation is doing. This has lead to lots of writings and rules from those clergy that had as their intention, that the Congregation is to be made to participate in certain ways. These rules and writings are not only contradictory, but can be arguably said to have failed in their intention."

In the space of 100 years we have gone from having a silent Low Mass in many places and or a Missa Cantata / High Mass. We now have in most places a Dialogue Mass with Hymns, and if you are really lucky a deformed Missa Cantata, with most but not all the parts sung. With these changes we have also seen our Churches and Seminaries empty!
If the Liturgical Movement has won it is rather a hollow victory.

where the Liturgical Movement had been strong prior to the Council, there was fierce protest when the traditional Latin Mass was taken away.

Well that would have to include England, where the silent EF Low Mass was and is incredibly popular!

Those interested in the comparison between the types of Low Mass, this is worth reading,
http://www.lmschairman.org/2014/05/position-paper-on-silent-low-mass-missa.html
N.B. do follow the link to the position paper.

I will just add this, while the dialogue Mass is helpful for some people, it is not helpful to others. Another problem is the participation in a dialogue Mass with hymns, can be an easy alternative to a Missa Cantata, and this appears to be a major reason that we now have mainly Dialogue Masses with Hymns.

JulieColl

My sincere apologies to madorganist if I piled on too much. My concern is with those in my extensive experience who have aligned themselves with the EF Low Mass and consider it their duty to enforce total silence on all those attending it. It has been my experience over many years that in general those people, clerical and lay, who prefer the silent Low Mass completely ignore the Church's emphasis, going back to Tra le sollecitudini in 1903, on the people taking "a more active part in the ecclesiastical offices, as was the case in ancient times."

It has been my experience that the silent Low Mass protagonists do their best to insure that silence is imposed on all in the church so if a Catholic wishes to pray the responses aloud, he/she is subject to meaningful glares and "shushing" and sometimes told outright to keep still. I have even been told it was the official diocesan policy that at Low Masses "no audible sound was to come from the pews" during Mass.

After being told that particular whopper, I spent a great deal of time pursuing the matter with the diocesan liturgy office and my ordinary and was eventually assured that I was correct, and that "a lower authority cannot contradict a higher authority." So, while some may think I am some kind of shrew or termagant, I take this subject very seriously and believe it is no little thing when local policies are made to silence Catholics in the pew at the traditional Latin Mass.

I'm not demanding in any way that people be forced to make the responses; how one participates at Mass is purely up to the individual. I just get annoyed when I am forced to be silent and must abdicate my liturgical speaking privileges to a 6 year old altar boy. Where on earth in Church doctrine or Holy Scripture is that indicated?

I'm all for an all-male priesthood and diaconate and hierarchy, etc. I get that, and I assent to that doctrine with all my heart since I believe the priest is an alter Christus, but altar boys, God bless them, don't need to speak for me to the Lord. I am very conscious of what my part is at the Mass, and I understand perfectly what the Latin responses mean, and I want to lift up my own voice at Mass, as I'm perfectly entitled to do, thank you very much, and, as, I might add, I have been encouraged and instructed to do by many Popes and eminent liturgists.

M. Jackson Osborn

'...there is no continuing emphasis on the Teachings of the Church.'

I had rather thought that the lectionary was the 'Teachings of the Church', as is all holy writ. The lectionary is precisely that by which the Church wishes you to be taught on a given day. Therefore, I cannot think of a more apt subject for homilies than the day's lectionary. This is a giant step in the right direction. The homily most emphatically should not be on whatever subject the homilist decides to preach on that day, let alone what he chooses to make a multi-weekly serial after the manner of Protestant preachers. (We can't seem to escape this silly notion that an emphasis on Scripture is Protestant as opposed to Catholic. How unfortunate. Scripture is Catholic, it is 'The Teachings of the Church'. It seems that some believe that the path to heaven is paved with canon law and dogma. These are but the merest flickering shadow of Scripture and the words of our Lord.)

JulieColl

I admire, as always, the lucid and wonderful interventions of Tomjaw, and I hate like heck to disagree with anything he says, but the thought occurs that perhaps there's a way to arrive at a quick consensus.

I am prepared to endorse madorganist's call for a silent Low Mass and reject the "innovation" of vocal congregational participation at the EF Low Mass if you all are prepared to be consistent and reject all vocal congregational participation at the OF and Anglican Use rites.

Let me state here that in the interests of unity, I'm resisting the temptation to ask you for the sake of consistency to call for the abrogation of all litugical innovations of the last 100 years, which would of course necessitate the repeal of the Novus Ordo.

So, to keep things simple, I will accept a silent EF Low Mass, if you will call for the immediate cessation of all vocal participation at the OF and Anglican Use Masses.

Love to all,

Julie

P.S. I'm going off to watch a football game now. : )

Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!

Categories