Disagreement over how the faithful should conduct their liturgy, or public worship, has dogged the Catholic Church for the past 50 years. The reasons are many, but three are especially salient: The liturgical changes that were introduced after the Second Vatican Council (1962–65) were sweeping — especially the new Mass, which replaced the centuries-old Latin Mass in 1969. Taken together, the changes to the Mass, the Church calendar, and other features of Catholic liturgy constitute the most extensive alteration that it has ever undergone.
The liturgical changes of the 1960s were in defiance of both the letter and the spirit of what the bishops had called for at Vatican II: adjustment and reform. What they got instead was a complete revolution, delivered as a fait accompli less than five years after the Council ended. Where the traditional liturgy was fixed and regulated, the reformed version — again, the new Mass in particular — is highly malleable.
It gives the clergy and their collaborators much greater license to be “creative” and to refashion the Mass (and other rites) for any given occasion, according to their varying tastes. UP NEXT Donald Trump’s tweets about London attack draw the ire of Theresa May 00:13 00:49
Powered by Modern Catholics have lost their “liturgical innocence,” as the German novelist Martin Mosebach argues. Because the liturgy is now so malleable, they can no longer take for granted that it simply is what it is. Whereas they used to be able to enter into it as a given structure, a tradition that formed them, their habits of prayer, and their knowledge of the faith, the liturgy is now a matter on which Catholics are compelled to have opinions and ideas and to take a position. Many Catholics but especially the young feel that the liturgy has lost and needs to recover its former beauty and sense of the sacred, whose importance is reflected in the title of Peter Kwasniewski’s new book, Noble Beauty, Transcendent Holiness: Why the Modern Age Needs the Mass of the Ages.
It is impossible for even the most ardent defenders of the liturgical reform of the 1960s to deny that much of what is now commonly experienced in Catholic liturgy — the church buildings, the vestments, the music — is incredibly ugly and that Catholic worship often suffers from a banality that beggars belief. That being the case, Kwasniewski’s book is not principally about the “policy weeds” of liturgy and liturgical reform, the change of this prayer or the moving of that saint’s feast day. He does touch on some of those matters, but his topic is broader: the question of how, in its public worship, the Church can recover both the beauty and the sense of the sacred that are proper to the things of God.
A large part of his thesis, which he shares with many others, including Mosebach, who contributed the foreword, is that the best way to recover what has been lost is to return to the traditional Latin Mass, the ancient norm for the Church until only half a century ago. For many years after the “new order of Mass” (Novus Ordo Missae) was introduced, the “Mass of the ages” was almost entirely forbidden. In that time of revolutionary fervor, anyone who dared advance a thesis such as Kwasniewski lays out here was too contemptible even to be acknowledged, much less dismissed as a crank.
That men such as Kwasniewski and Mosebach now make the case for the Latin Mass is a sign of important changes taking place in the Church. The liturgical reform devised with modern man in mind is something in which modern man is largely uninterested. The prohibition of the Latin Mass could never be justified in canon law. Pope St. John Paul II relaxed the ban on the Latin Mass to some degree, but it fell to Pope Benedict XVI, who over many years has often applied his eloquence and wisdom to liturgical questions, to eliminate the restrictions almost entirely. In Summorum Pontificum, the document in which he affirmed the liberty that priests have to say the traditional Latin Mass, he noted that “what earlier generations held as sacred . . . cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.” It was the most important achievement of his pontificate.
Benedict did not merely address the pastoral needs of those who prefer the old Mass. He intended for it to provide a reference point for reform of the new Mass, with an eye to putting the Church’s liturgical house in order after many long years of disorder. What Kwasniewski explains, accordingly, topic by topic, with his own eloquence and wisdom, and fairly strong polemical force to boot, is how the old Mass can inform the new Mass. There is certainly a growing trend to celebrate the new Mass, now known as Mass in “the ordinary form,” in a manner conducive to beauty and more in keeping with both tradition and the mind of Vatican II. This trend is more notable in the United States than in many other countries, and there is every reason to think it will continue to grow. Unlike many writers in the traditionalist camp, Kwasniewski does not dismiss as irrelevant this development in the celebration of the newer rite.
It is, however, a movement still in its infancy. It encounters stiff resistance from many priests, especially those who were young when the new rites were instituted in the ’60s. (Younger Catholics, whether they think of themselves as “traditionalists” or not, often refer to such clergy as “hippy priests”: a funny appellation but grossly unfair to the hippies, who, despite their many problems, generally had much better taste in music.) The priest blogger Father John Zuhlsdorf has coined a phrase, “the biological solution,” for what he argues will be the ultimate failure of aging priests to frustrate attempts by younger Catholics to make the liturgy more traditional. Nevertheless, there are too many places where the younger clergy and laity have the means and the will to improve their liturgical prayer but cannot do so in the context of the ordinary form of the Mass. For many of them, the rediscovery of the traditional Latin Mass, or Mass in “the extraordinary form,” has become the true reform.
Full story at National Review.
This is all very interesting, however, the Church should continue with the current arrangement of the Extraordinary Form and Ordinary Form of the Mass. This permits access to the Traditional Latin Mass for those who prefer it and access to the Mass in the vernacular for those prefer it. This arrangement seems to be meeting the needs of most parishioners and parishes.
Surprisingly the Old Latín Mass has prospered in Southern California. After the 7:00 pm Mass in St. Victor’s in West Hollywood on can walk a block to the restaurants of Sunset Boulevard and all types of misbehavior. In this land of extremes the Faith grows strong. We will be hard to destroy, in part thanks to the strength of Archbishop (not Cardinal) Jose Gomez.
Gratias,
I’m not surprised. Sadly, I’ve noticed that the priests of the Archdiocese generally have a much greater tendency towards pride and arrogance than those in other dioceses. I’ve also found that pride is the quickest way to impoverish one’s spiritual life. Consequently, such spiritually impoverished priests, who may also have an inner condescension towards their parishioners, are unable to properly form, lead, and conduct the liturgy.
With that said, there are also some truly excellent priest in the Archdiocese as well. But I’ve found that they’re much harder to find.
WONDERFUL that so many young people, who were not even born until many years after the Council– love the Old Latin Mass, and wish to marry and raise their children in it, with faithful priests and nuns to help! Wish that the Pope and Vatican would fully support these good young Catholics! WONDERFUL too, that there is a great number of priestly vocations, for the groups of priests that are entirely devoted to the Traditional Latin Mass!
We should be grateful for all priests, period. Not just those who are entirely devoted to the TLM. As Fr. Z wrote recently in his blog, it is diocesan priests, the simple parish priests, who offer both forms who get most of the brunt of the opposition to Summorum Pontificum.
The Rose– I am certainly not debating one form of the Mass over the other! Just saying how wonderful it is, that so many young people are even interested in coming to Mass, and love the old Latin Tridentine Mass! Lots of experts might think that young people would have no interest in the Catholic Church– especially, in the old Latin Mass! Yet, many young people love the old Tridentine Latin Mass– which ended as being our main form of the Mass, at Vatican II– long before many of today’s young people were even born! Isn’t that something! Wonderful!!
P.S. The Pope and his Church leaders would be VERY SMART, to support these dedicated young people!
The good, devout Catholic young people, who love the old, Tridentine Latin Mass, certainly do not deserve all the ignorant, hurtful scorn, they so often receive, from the Pope and the Vatican! They ought to receive praise, and lots of help and encouragement, to further develop their devout religious interest!!
I look forward to reading Peter Kwasniewski’s new book. Another excellent book on this subject is “The Banished Heart” by Geoffrey Hull, published in 2010. A warning, though. It is painful to read how the “cut and paste” Mass of Paul VI and its Cranmer table was imposed upon the Faithful and into our once beautiful churches.
When is watched as the priests REMOVED the Tabernacles from the Main Altar, I knew there was/is a problem. The Tabernacle which holds the Body of Christ, and which DESERVES our STRONGEST DEVOTION, is now placed on side Altars or back rooms.
Come on fellow Catholics, let uf see the problem with the new teachings and admit Vatican II was/.is a mistake.
Richard,
Vatican II did not require or suggest the movement of tabernacles. Therefore, your accusation against the Second Vatican Council is misplaced.
A specious argument (“Vatican II did not require or suggest the movement of tabernacles..”).
# 128, Sacr. Conc., (1963) discusses “the placing and ‘safety’ of the tabernacle”. Accordingly, in 1965, Card. Lercaro of the Consilium [=the apparatus set up to implement V2’s changes] in his “Letter to Bishops” #7, advised it should be “set in a chapel specially set aside”, and it should “not be obscured by the priest”— who now had his back to the altar (Interesting how one change catalyzed another?). GIRM 1969 stated the tabernacle now should be “in a chapel suitable for adoration. ” (#276)
Please explain how V2 did NOT cause the removal of the tabernacle, based on this documentation.
Anon 2,
I won’t be able to reply to you until this evening since I had little free time yesterday evening. I’m sorry about the delay.
I have no doubt that Mr. Seitz will divine a way to rationalize that the offered citations, the most one can do in 750 characters—which underscore one of the greatest ‘trapdoors’ [“the placing and the ‘safety’ of the tabernacle” #276, SC—were they not ‘safe before?] of Vatican II—do not make V2 responsible for this catastrophic change.
Indeed I expect Mr S. will employ a completely new mental gymnastic to attribute the matter to anything, anything, BUT V2.
Without the Council, this would never have happened.
Anon 2,
Sacrosanctum Concilium, Sec. 128 states, “Statutes. . .should be revised [concerning]. . .the nobility, placing, and security of the Eucharistic tabernacle.”
Of note, there is an issue with the tabernacle. It should be the focal point of a church, but this creates some discord during Mass when the altar and ambo are to be the focal points. The Church has dealt poorly with this issue.
The best solution that I’ve seen is the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament, Sacramento. The tabernacle is placed in a prayer chapel against the east wall (former sanctuary). The altar, on the other hand, is prominently displayed under a large dome with a huge crucifix suspended overhead.
[Continued on Next]
[Continued from Previous]
As such, the tabernacle is exactly were it should be, is viewable throughout the church, but never upstages the Mass. (photos on internet). It fully conforms with Sacrosanctum Concilium, Sec. 128.
Please note that placing the tabernacle in front of, behind, or on the altar does not contradict the Council. The post-conciliar documents, on the other hand, poorly executed the wisdom of the Council and are not to be confused with the magisterial authority of the Council.
I think the author overstates, and thus weakens, his case.
He says the now mass is highly maleable, without citing specific examples. My understanding is there are a limited number of prayers to be said in a specified order by an ordained priest.
He says church buildings, vestments, and music are banal. He asserts all will agree with this. To the contrary, I respectfully suggest as an example, some 1950s vestments might be considered overly ornate to the point of being gaudy.
The Church was wrong to restrict Latin Masses. They are now equal to vernacular Masses. I believe the Church would be wrong to attempt to restore Latin as superior.
Even Denis Crouan wrote that the stiff chasuble that was used before Vatican II was a novelty or fad that gained popularity among Catholic priests in the 19-th century.
The History and the Future of the Roman Liturgy. Ignatius Press. Professor Crouan is a conservative French theological scholar.
I agree with mikem! I grew up in the pre-Vatican II Church and was so happy when the Mass could be celebrated in English. The Traditional Latin Mass is fine for those who want it, but let’s not return to a Latin Mass only Church.
Richard, many of the damages that were done to the once magnificent interiors of churches were done by the pastors in the middle of the night. In my parish of Sacred Heart, the pastor had the marble smashed up, and the huge statues carried to a landfill where it was buried. Lovely mosaics and gorgeous frescoes were white washed and painted over. History repeats itself; just as many of the statues in various cities have been destroyed, vandalized or covered up, the same thing happened to the insides of many Catholic churches in the 1960’s.
Reminds you of Martin Luther and his pals, in the Reformation era! They, too, disliked fancy, beautiful churches, sacred artwork, statues, veneration of the saints, Latin Masses, all the fancy Sacraments– and all beautiful and ornate styles of worship! They felt so alienated by insincere, arrogant, highly-educated “elite” priests, who were not very spiritual or devout, and were too far, intellectually, from the poor, uneducated laymen in the pews! They wanted a Bible to read in their own language, with no arrogant, overly-educated priest, interpreting it for them. They wanted more basic equality and respect, in their parishes. And a VERY PLAIN, SIMPLE, “average layman’s” style of worship, FAIR to them!!
St. Francis of Assisi was so unhappy in his era, with the insincere, arrogant, too-educated yet very irreligious, extremely worldly clergy, in his day — that he would not study for the priesthood at all! I sometimes think of these types of examples, historically– when reading the works of highly-educated yet very irreligious, unfaithful, and immoral clergy, of today’s era! All the fine ecclesiastical education in the world, and big, doctoral degrees in theology, for example— if not applied, to help you be a better, more Christ-like priest or bishop– is a TOTAL WASTE!!
“Fred” and others: You are wrong in seeking continuation of the unworkable. Any institution must speak with one set of principles, one form of governance, one set of ceremony and ritual, one voice. The Church today is a polyglot of languages, of liturgy, of beliefs. Just look at the insanity of priests, like Fr. James Martin, lovingly embracing the most vile and reprehensible of sins: homosexual sex, while the Vatican looks benignly on. The wholesale departure of Church members from the Gospel and from its own Tradition is an ongoing and growing scandal.
The Novus Ordo Mass, while essentially licit, cannot stand as the Church’s form of worship. No institution can last that so completely rejects its own history, its own DNA. The…
(Part Deux) ” . . . TLM must be returned as the sole form of liturgical expression in the world. And, all sacraments must be those developed since the time of Christ, not since the time of George Soros, who is increasingly adored by Vatican leadership.
Mankind must be lovingly directed to the means of its salvation. Such is the sole legitimate role of the Catholic Church, as through Her guidance is salvation found.
The very sad superficiality of the faithless glares through the repetitive comments here about the need to cater to those who “prefer” one form or the other, or both. Mass has never been about what priest or congregation “prefers,” never. The Mass is not about us, it’s about God. It’s also not about what freemason Archbishop Bugnini wanted when he overturned centuries of divinely-guided development of the traditional form. Get over it, folks, and grow up. The N.O. is the biggest mistake in the history of the Church, even worse than the council that gave birth to it.
It does not appear that the Traditional Latin Mass will be restored as the sole, exclusive form of the Mass in the foreseeable future. By the way, even prior to Vatican II, there were different versions/forms of the Mass. The Church has flourished for many centuries with more than one form of the Holy Mass.
Georgia, Vatican II just said to make a few changes in the Mass. If you have a 1965 missal or prayer book, it is almost the Tridentine Mass, but in English. The last Gospel is omitted as well as the Judica Mea. It was Bugnini and his Masonic pals that forced Paul VI to go beyond what the Council asked for. If the Tridentine Mass were translated properly into English, and that translation used for those who desired it, that would be fine. But, the Novus Ordo has many serious problems with it, even in Latin.
The posts by those insisting the Traditional Latin Mass is the only form of the Mass that should be used in the Catholic Church prove that they are not faithful Catholics. Pope Benedict XVI approved two forms: the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form. Pope Benedict XVI is an outstanding theologian and a very wise and holy man. He knew what he was doing. Having at least two forms of the Mass is the teaching of the magisterium and I support it. Also, in the early history of the Church there were multiple forms of the Mass celebrated in multiple languages.
Linda Maria’s dire take on the value of advanced theological studies for priests, proceeds from this implicit premise: the less of the Faith a priest knows, the better he’ll be at teaching it to his people. Makes sense??
Anonymous, I didn’t say that! I said, that a good ecclesiastical education is supposed to make a priest holier, and closer to God! It is not supposed to be merely an academic venture! Sadly, there are too many priests and bishops, even those convicted of child sex molestation crimes — who have HUGE theological degrees! This is also why I have always opposed the excuses of the famous “Land O’ Lakes” statement, by American Catholic university leaders/priests in 1967— they desired to operate their schools outside of the Catholic Church, because they so valued the trophies of academic research (outside of Catholic teaching!) and competition with secular schools!
The Real Ralph, I am not so sure that men changing the TLM into the NO service was the biggest mistake in the history of the Church. All of the 7 Holy Sacraments were changed, not just the TLM by arrogant me who thought they could improve upon the work of Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. The first Sacrament that was changed was that of Holy Orders. Many Catholics never knew the difference because so few had ever even attended the Ordination of a Catholic Priest or the Consecration of a Catholic Bishop. Shudder to think what the implications would mean if the changes rendered those new ceremonies as powerless! Perhaps this explains why the declining state of modern church is a steep slippery downhill attendance slope.
“George,” don’t put too much value in JPII and Benedict, both leaders in changing the Mass in the first place. But, both saw that what they did was theological nonsense and an ultimate disaster for the Church. Efforts to link the two masses together as “equal” are make-weight and doomed to failure.
Vatican II “implementers” insisted on the reality of a true revolution, and they created one. Paul VI was too weak to stop it, and so we have the Novus Ordo. No revolution, however, can have two voices: with the NO or the TLM will have to become the sole liturgy: one is a political victory, one a theological one.