Thanks for the ping! Yes, there is.
I was just thinking about some of these issues today, after Sunday mass. I live in a diocese where we recently received a very firm “NO” on the celebration of the TLM, including the forbidding of priests to say it as their private mass (fortunately, I think that’s unenforceable). I noticed the practice of the bishop who did this, and while he’s pretty orthodox in many ways, his mass is a prime example of all the points above.
He’s an inveterate ad-libber, obviously feeling that what it says in the actual text isn’t enough, he occasionally leaves parts out (I assume he does this intentionally), and he loves the candidate-for-an-Oscar reading style.
What this means to me is that even the priests themselves, even the most ardent defenders of the NO, such as our bishop, realize there is something lacking there.
They know the language is flat and dull (although our bishop has actually supported Trautperson’s criticism of the new translation coming out this fall as too “high flown” for the average drooling idiot - er, sorry, that would be parishioner - in the pew to understand). So they try to compensate.
They know that the scatter-shot effect of the unfocused, abbreviated readings means that most of the hearers turn their ears off, so they attempt to add drama in hopes that it will compensate and capture the attention of the listeners.
And the fact that there are numerous different canons and numerous different options for just about everything in the NO gives them the feeling that, after all, anything is permitted, and it’s really all about putting on a personal show based on their own choices and taste (or lack thereof).
I realized that one of the things that is most disturbing to them about the TLM is that it is an exact reversal of all these things, and they see it not simply as a challenge to the NO in general, but to the “personal mass” they have constructed individually within the NO.
I had never seen it from that angle before, but I think you've really hit on something! I had just vaguely assumed that it was the vernacular that just made it too easy to freelance. But I see now I was thinking of means and not ends!
different options for just about everything in the NO gives them the feeling that, after all, anything is permitted
With some justification. I can't keep up with it all myself, and sometimes I find myself wondering "Is that really part of the Mass or is it made up on the spot?" (I refuse to use those Missalettes to follow something in my native tongue!)
not simply as a challenge to the NO in general, but to the “personal mass” they have constructed individually within the NO.
Yes! I do believe you've hit on something here. People get very attached to what they've "created." (When I taught sections of comp as a TA in grad school, one of the hardest -- and most important -- things to get across was that when I criticized their writing, I wasn't judging them, their hearts, their souls, their personhood.) What's that in Shakespeare? "A poor thing, but mine own." Only some of them seem to think "a wond'rous thing, and all mine own!"
Livius,
People follow mindlessly when they don’t know what alternatives there are. Right now, on EWTN, the routine Sunday N.O. Mass is one of the most solemn Masses you can ever see. Tell your “pew mates” to watch one! And then, wait for the Masses on the TLM coming on September 14.
It took 40 years to get here from there. Pope Benedict is backed by the Holy Spirit. That is how the situation should be.