Charles wrote:

Clericalism can involve huge egos, too.
There is also a mindset that develops of letting father do everything and we just watch. Not good, since we all have a part to play. The mass is not all about father, although some priests seem to think it is.

Charles, respectfully, I believe your relative good parish experience has allowed you to not see what is painfully common in most places: that clericalism is now excessively on the side of those “Presiders” who impose their personalities on the faithful by altering Mass text, telling jokes, being a personable wiseguy, using in-Mass announcements to constantly and painfully make us aware of their presence, etc... In the parish that I grew up in, a pastor change happened when I was a senior in high school. The new pastor insisted on telling jokes immediately after the post-communion prayer, even during the choral “high Mass” because he said he wanted everyone to “leave with a smile” on their face. He went on to tell a joke about Poles, blonds, etc... Meanwhile most parishioners would chuckle and laugh through the following “The Lord be with you” dialogue. A few parishioners left, saying they would be back as soon as Fr. stopped this practice. And who was labeled the curmudgeon? Those faithful people who desired a chance to pray.

Clericalism? I was in a Novus ordo parish in eastern South Dakota not too long ago that had the presider’s chair elevated in the center of the sanctuary with six candles around it, with the tabernacle far away. And whatever you think of the Council of Trent and the practice of introducing the tabernacle into the center of the sanctuary, I will take re-introducing the divine Lord of all creation into the center of our minds and hearts any day, particularly in a culture that has lost a sense of Him. It is painful to continually read you dismiss the importance of this reality in such a faithless world. And when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on earth? -Luke18:8

Someone sent me this video, and, starting at 2:19 is the sort of improvisatory creativity that just grates at me and many of those I know. If I had to go through stuff like this every weekend I probably couldn’t keep the faith. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s4wh8Kb97N4
FULL DISCLOSURE: I know that that not every parish is like this. I know many fine, fine ordinary form/NO priests, including an 89 year old priest who I have the joy of taking out to lunch and talking music with several times a year. Another FULL DISCLOSURE: I do not agree with all the side commentary this video makes.

Lastly, I present to you in an article written by a great friend of Monsignor Schuler, Fr. John Buchanan for Musica Sacra back in the late 80’s. Father was one of the earliest liturgical reformers, moving his altar to face the people as early as the 1940s, removing Communion rails, etc... But a few decades later he found himself face to face with the very principles he at at one time had been advocating. His article is on page 5. https://media.musicasacra.com/publications/sacredmusic/pdf/sm114-4.pdf

Francis,

Murky implies dark and unclear. Absent the idea that His Holiness is intentionally doing what he is for the purpose of preparing to lance the boil, "unclear" is inadequate to describe the situation.

No broom closets. Sacrament houses and chapels devoted to Christ's real presence. The tabernacle over the altar is a post-Trent innovation that even the Vatican opposed for some time before giving approval. I don't see it as anything essential to faith. However, it is not a secret I am an easterner and can find Latin practices a bit odd, at times.

Oddly enough it was a 'positive' 'reform of the reform' experience that killed my appreciation for the idea. I belonged to a lay association led by a priest who celebrated with lovely reverence, with great respect for tradition, and with good choices of music, including some chant. Once a week I had access to the TLM, once a week to the lay association RotR, and the rest of the days there was the random-coin-toss-Mass at the closest parish, where each of the five priests celebrated according to his mood and preferences, and they were on a random schedule, so one could never hope for any consistency. One liked to do very emotive rituals, such as suddenly singing part of the liturgy in an unknown language (Greek? Aramaic?), processing in with the Extraordinary Ministers carrying thuribles and a stereo system blasting Mozart, playing meditation tunes on his iphone during Communion, while the Ministers distributed... Another was a ferocious young priest expert in marital law, who preached fire and brimstone and was always available when it was his turn to man the confessional, and celebrated humorlessly, prayerfully and with no ornament whatsoever. Another was a jolly fellow who loved to chuck me under the chin or pat me on the cheek after I received Communion. He sometimes burst into song - he sang quite well! - but it was random. Sometimes a fragment of an Introit in Latin, sometimes an Offertory hymn, sometimes a Marian hymn after Mass. He once burst out "SILENCE!!!" mid-prayer when some people were chattering loudly near the entrance. Another was always late and always looked as if someone had had to go wake him up and drag him downstairs: unshaven, rumpled clothes, sneakers showing under the vestments, hair askew. He prayed his Masses rapidly and rotely, with no innovations.

I reiterate: this is at ONE church. The other eight churches within easy reach of my house offer the same grand diversity of liturgical practices. Even the most conservative church I can go to (I assisted there for a year before discovering the TLM) is a weird mish-mash of creativity and reverence. The liturgies are done in whatever way fits with the preferences of the priest and choir. It makes for a facade of reverent ritual while actually skipping this and that to save time, including/excluding things to pander to VIPS in the congregation, and so on.

All this merely to say that when, then, Father RotR made his grand effort at reverence and beauty, it was starkly apparent that it was simply yet another choice, a matter of taste, or even a kind of affectation. There is/was simply no fixed or 'correct' manner of celebrating, but only a general range of options, some of which are actually not permitted in practice (if they are too reformy!).

So anyway, after years of valiant effort, I've just given up. Given that the very source of all the confusion is disobedience in ten directions, in what possible manner are we going to obligate everyone to celebrate the same way? Or even in a vaguely similar way? No one is going to give an inch on their now-politicized practices. What never happens is a deference to and service to the liturgy as it is, as it "must be", so that we participate in it as it is, rather than making it be as we wish. THAT feature of the older rite seems to me the most profound. If I - in some alternative universe - were to 'redo' the reform, that would be one of the most important parts: here is our liturgy. These are our prayers. These are our gestures.

The seminarians I know now (in the diocesan seminary) have no formation in liturgy. They are expected to learn on the job, in the parishes, and do it however they like. I find this mystifying. As I have long said in other contexts: I don't need anyone to make stuff up for me. I'm quite intelligent and creative, and I can make my own stuff up. I can't recall any instance in which God said "Oh, do whatever, I don't care." He normally seems to care very, very much what we do, and wants our full, heart-felt engagement in HIS will, not for us to doodle around doing whatever we wish.

Anyway, I've been much distraught by the pagan goings-on at the recent synod (being a former pagan myself), and that has left me both much more engaged in prayer, and much more committed to living the fullness of my faith in every moment, no matter how crazy everyone else gets. It's an honor and a trial to be alive at such a strange time.

Sorry to rant.

@CatherineS

Thank you, thank you for ranting so eloquently.

blasting Mozart...

I’m always doing that... along with the RotR... it’s a silly excuse to avoid the real thing, just as you expressed so well, adding or subtracting whatever WE LIKE... either GC or Clowns... take your pick. (and as long as the NO remains, that is exactly how it will continue to be.)

And, your efforts as a DoM, will never be stable. That is anti to the theology of the NO. All hail the VO.

Can. 246 §1. The eucharistic celebration is to be the center of the entire life of a seminary in such a way that, sharing in the very love of Christ, the students daily draw strength of spirit for apostolic work and for their spiritual life especially from this richest of sources.
Can. 252 §3. There are to be classes in dogmatic theology, always grounded in the written word of God together with sacred tradition; through these, students are to learn to penetrate more intimately the mysteries of salvation, especially with St. Thomas as a teacher. There are also to be classes in moral and pastoral theology, canon law, liturgy, ecclesiastical history, and other auxiliary and special disciplines, according to the norm of the prescripts of the program of priestly formation.

INSTRUCTION ON LITURGICAL FORMATION IN SEMINARIES
Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education
Part Two
THE TEACHING OF THE SACRED LITURGY IN SEMINARIES
a) General Principle
43. Besides the first and elementary introduction to the liturgy which is to be imparted, when necessary, when the students first enter the seminary, as mentioned in no. 8 above, the Bishops' Conferences are to arrange that in their national Ratio institutionis the teaching of the liturgy is given that place in the four-year theology course which satisfies the prescription of the Constitution Sacrosanctum concilium no. 16: "The study of the sacred liturgy is to be ranked among the compulsory and major courses in seminaries and religious houses of study; in theological faculties it is to rank among principal subjects. It is to be taught under its theological, historical, spiritual, pastoral, and juridical aspects." This prescription, which is summed up in no. 79 of the Ratio fundamentalis, must be understood in its genuine sense and put into effect, as the following paragraphs indicate.

There is certainly a great deal of flexibility in some parts of the Mass, mostly in the way the celebrant can structure things and in the way he can comment and instruct. ("In these or similar words"). But if you are giving a single set of rules which covers every eventuality from the bishop celebrating pontifically to one priest in a scout camp, that is inevitable. And apart from certain specified flexibilities, there is a very clear rule that NO words are to be used that have not been authorised. Even alius cantus aptus was qualified by the text of which has been approved by ... .
But in any case my extracts from the laws are in response to the observation

The seminarians I know now (in the diocesan seminary) have no formation in liturgy.

Which I imagine comments on Brasil, but which also to my knowledge was true of at least one seminary in England at the turn of the millenium. To be fair I should say that the actual celebrations in which the seminarians participated were exemplary.

@CharlesW

We are either your cup of tea, or not. If not, we encourage you to go elsewhere

Apparently, such talk makes TLM-goers "elistist" and "unwelcoming."
I don't know if you heard about the homily [loudly] given by Father when the Holy Ghost schola joined ours in Sept., but evidently someone is playing a game of complaints against TLM-communities in our diocese, and it is causing trouble.

Apparently, such talk makes TLM-goers "elistist" and "unwelcoming."
I don't know if you heard about the homily [loudly] given by Father when the Holy Ghost schola joined ours in Sept., but evidently someone is playing a game of complaints against TLM-communities in our diocese, and it is causing trouble.

CCooze, That schola is not the Holy Ghost choir but a private group that sings with and for us every two weeks, that is, if you are referring to the Pope Benedict XVI Schola. Their help and assistance is greatly appreciated. I heard nothing about the homily, so fill me in on that, by private message if necessary.

Complaints against TLM communities? I haven't heard complaints about TLM communities but about some of the really obnoxious people who have attached themselves to them. Approbations are deserved and some of those folks do the TLM communities great harm and are not an asset.

We have one TLM mass per week, that particular schola never sings with them since they have their own choir, and the parish is majority NO English. That being said, the parish is far more conservative and traditional than your average NO parish. I see to that where music is concerned.

/\ that.

I take it that the rotr is pretty much dead

Something that was never alive can't die. At best, the whole concept was good for making the most of a difficult situation. Case in point: where is the growth of Latin Novus Ordo Masses offered ad orientem with Gregorian Chant and sacred polyphony, only men and boys in the sanctuary, and Holy Communion distributed only on the tongue while kneeling versus the TLM? With the (relative) freedom now for priests to offer the TLM, why would anyone bother with the N.O. offered according to traditional praxis unless they had to?

Funny you should ask...

I'm glad that Mass is happening, but at the same time, it's a transition (a good one, but still). At the end of the day, there are so many options in the N.O. that improvements to the situation can only be transitory. I'm directing the music for an N.O. wedding Mass on the 30th with the Latin chant Propers, a polyphonic Ordinary, motets and mostly offered ad orientem. Hopefully, it bears good fruit both for the couple and for that parish, but I don't see it as a permanent situation. At best, it will spark interest in the TLM.

The US Roman Missal has Snow's melody for the Our Father (p. 663) instead of the ICEL melody.

It had become an exercise in clericalism. It was theater with onlookers, not participants.

Or so you were told, Charles.

Now we're told that we can dare to hope that ALL will be saved. So that must be the real, actual, scientific case, eh?

Dad29 I think age is finally getting to you. I remember mass before Vatican II and it was what I noted. Even the church in an official council called for liturgical reform. Unfortunately, some of the restored TLM masses have recreated all the problems that caused that liturgy to be revised in the first place.

I will stay with my 1500-year-old traditions. At least, some know-it-all wont be tampering with it. Also, the hippies hated us so they left us alone, too.

dad29 - I agree that great improvements had been made, in some places including the Benedictine parish where I lived, during the 60 years up to 1963. But that was when the assembled bishops called for further changes.
You ask me

And what, exactly, was "Trent's vision"?

See for yourself in either of these translations https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Canons_and_Decrees_of_the_Council_of_Trent/Session_XXII/Sacrifice_of_the_Mass or for a different translation http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch22.htm I don't know that anyone can see "exactly" what they wanted, but it included "the mysteries of the Mass to be explained to the people" frequently during the celebration of the Mass and the wish that "at each mass, the faithful who are present should communicate".

a_f, my friend, "Communicate" in Trent-ese means "receive Communion." It does not mean "run one's mouth."

As to 'frequent explanations,' that actually was a thing in the early '70's, IIRC. Didn't come off very well and died a quiet death, un-lamented. Since hand-missals and the near-universal ability to read, "commentators" were just redundant.

Charles, apparently you were in a far different liturgical milieu than I was as a member of the congregation AND as an altar server in the mid-to-late '50's through early '60's. My sympathy.

By the way, since the Orthodox still use Greek, are they incapable of "understanding" the Holy Liturgy?

By the way, since the Orthodox still use Greek, are they incapable of "understanding" the Holy Liturgy?

Only the Greeks use Greek.

Charles, apparently you were in a far different liturgical milieu than I was as a member of the congregation AND as an altar server in the mid-to-late '50's through early '60's. My sympathy.

Apparently your little cult operated differently. Must be a blue state.