Posted on 10/16/2002 10:48:45 AM PDT by ultima ratio
by Jeffrey Tucker
We'll Take the "Quiet Mass"
10/16/02
Early one Sunday morning, my son, age 3, asked whether we were going to the "quiet Mass" or the "fun Mass." The choice was between the 100-mile drive our family makes once a month to Atlanta to attend a church that offers the Tridentine Rite — the old Latin liturgy that prevailed until 1969, when the Vatican II reforms were implemented — and the quick hop down the road to our local parish church in Auburn, Alabama.
In This Article... The Old Is New Again A Middle Voice A Case to "Reinstate"
The Old Is New Again
There, we can see friends and neighbors, sing along to bouncy liturgical music, feast on donuts afterward (the Latin Mass in Atlanta offers only hard cookies), and be home in no time. My son was relieved — but also disappointed — to learn that this wasn't the Sunday of the "quiet Mass," when we make our monthly trek to be part of what every Catholic in the world experienced 30 years ago.
Yes, the new Mass (Novus Ordo Missae is its Latin name) is "fun." It's accessible and community-minded. Our local parish isn't one of those where abuses thrive, such as making up our own liturgy or letting lay people preach their own theologies in sermons. Our priests love the faith and adhere strictly to the rubrics that the Church has set forth for the Mass's celebration. Their homilies are not overly politicized. And they do their best to invest the English liturgical text (a victim of a tone-deaf translation committee) with profundity.
Nonetheless, the overall effect of our parish Mass is not so much scandalous as spiritually and aesthetically prosaic. Despite the new liturgy's attempt to reach us where we are, its effect is oddly abstract and distant compared with that of the old. It's great to be with the community and hear a nice homily, but the whole point of the Mass is something very different: that in the sacrifice on the altar, the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Our Lord. In the multitude of readings, greetings, and songs in our parish church, that point tends to fade into the distance.
Even my toddler son and my older daughter, age 6 (my youngest is a baby), understand that something is missing at the "fun Mass." I make a point of never disparaging the new rite in my children's presence. That's because I recall a conversation I once had with a fallen-away Catholic. She said, "Oh yes, my father loved the Latin Mass. After Vatican II, he refused to go to church at all." I wondered at the time if her father's stubbornness position inadvertently played a role in his daughter's loss of faith. I didn't want that to happen to my children, so I swore that I would always keep my complaining to myself. I want my children to grow up as faithful Catholics, regardless of which rite they attend.
A Middle Voice
But can the new rite ensure this as well as the old? The old rite provides theological depth, transcendental complexity, the right mix of exterior and interior textures, and a historical link to the whole of Catholic liturgical tradition. Can a rite designed in 1969 do the same? I'm not taking any chances by denying them exposure to the old rite as well as the new.
I've tried to put myself in their place and deduce why they are attracted to this old-fashioned ritual, which is not inherently child-friendly. Maybe it's the smell of incense and the strange sights and sounds: the clanking chain of the thurible, in which the incense burns; the complicated altar choreography; the high-pitched Sanctus bells. Maybe it's the Gregorian chant, a form of music so intrinsic to the Faith, it seems to evangelize all by itself. Or the silence in the church before and after Mass. Even the very unfamiliarity of the Latin language that challenges their ears.
Most likely, my children treat the old Latin Mass with respect and deference for the same reason my wife and I do: the entire liturgy takes us far away from everyday life, envelops us in a sense of mystery and spiritual solemnity, transports us out of time and place, and feeds our souls. It is not one thing in particular but the whole package, so integrated and thick with meaning, so radically unfamiliar and yet deeply penetrating, that causes us to hope that the Church will no longer treat this Mass as a bone thrown to quirky people willing to drive long distances to attend it, but as a mainstream part of everyday Catholic life, as it once was.
Catholic writers such as Michael Davies have gone to great lengths to demonstrate the theological superiority of the old Mass and its continuity with the practices of the early Church. Philosophers such as Catherine Pickstock of Cambridge University have contended that the old Roman Rite is so significant as a distinct language form that it solves the very riddle of linguistic meaning that the French deconstructionists have raised. She argues that the old liturgy, developed over 10 centuries, emerged as neither pure "text" nor pure revelation from God, but a "middle voice" between time and eternity, one that takes us to truth.
But in the end, such arguments are not as important as the simple fact that the Latin Mass calls me personally and intimately to communion with God, and that everything that happens during that hour is directed toward that goal.
A Case to "Reinstate"
The Tridentine parish in Atlanta that we attend, St. Francis de Sales, opened only last year and is one of the few in the country where all the sacraments are offered in pre-Vatican II form. The pastor, the Rev. Mark Fischer of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, a Vatican-approved order dedicated to the Tridentine rite, raised money to purchase a former Baptist church on the outskirts of town — and with its plain red brick exterior, hanging interior ball lights, acoustic ceiling (think public school, circa 1955), and pile carpet, let's just say this is no Chartres.
And yet the people come. There are two Masses on Sunday, and both are three-quarters full and growing.
Children of all ages can be seen at these Masses. In fact, most of the people there seem to be under 40 and over 65, with the generation that came of age during Vatican II conspicuously underrepresented. Many, like us, travel long distances to attend. The congregation includes a broad cross-section of races, ethnic groups, and social classes. What unites us all is a love of the old liturgy and our faith.
Why, if the case for the old Latin Mass is so apparent to so many of all ages, do we have to drive so far to find it? Part of the answer may lie in Church politics (many liturgists have invested heavily in the notion of "reform" that the new rite seems to entail) and part in sheer inertia. The new Mass is now the "tradition" in most parishes, like my own in Auburn.
Still, I'm inclined to think that eventually the majority of Catholics will come to recognize — and reinstate — the beauty and profundity of the "quiet Mass" of the Tridentine rite, which my 3-year-old son can see so clearly.
(This article reprinted with permission of Beliefnet.com.)
Copyright © 2002 Catholic Exchange All rights reserved.
Yes. In the '50s, the attendance was 80%, which was down from 90% in the '40s. And, in the '60s, it was down to 70%. See a pattern here?
In the aftermath of the reform Mass attendance is now in the 10-20 percent range.
As is attendance at most mainline Protestant Churches, and even old-line Baptist churches.
America is a religious country that doesn't go to church. But, America is more observant than Europe.
It would seem that a fair assessment of the question of a popular "vote" should compare the NO and Tridentine acceptance in a climate where each is fully taught and supported by the Church. In that light, the Tridentine "wins" hands down.
That's your opinion. My opinion is that most Catholics would not choose to attend Mass celebrated in a language they do not understand.
When the NO was implemented, no vote was taken or considered at the time. What do you suppose the results would have been if they had? I'd wager Church-goers would overwhelmingly reject the NO in favor of the Tridentine. Do you disagree?
I don't disagree. But, over time, the NO would have gained the greater acceptance.
Do you remember the atmospherics at Tridentine Masses? I remember that most women said the rosary during Mass, and there were zealots who made the stations during the celebration. Why do you think they did this?
They were bored, with a priest with his back to them, praying silently in a language they didn't understand.
The Spirit has spoken. I'm all for a liberal application of the Indult.
But the idea that there is some kind of groundswell for reinstatement of the Tridentine Mass as the normative liturgy is simply ludicrous on its face.
Talk about hitting the nail on the head!
Every Latin Mass I've ever been to, and that's at least a dozen different locations, has missals in the church. They have Latin and English on facing pages. My children understand it just fine. My 11-year old has memorized the whole Mass so he can serve.
But even if you are illiterate, you can pray just as well. Unlike the New Mass, the point is not to follow every word of the priest, the point is to PRAY. You can spiritually join your intentions to those of the priest without paying any attention to what he's saying on the altar.
It's better if you understand the Latin, of course. But centuries worth of illiterate peasants got plenty of spiritual value out of the Latin Mass.
Simply put, if the majority of American Catholics know so little about their Faith that they consistently vote for the Party Of Moloch, then the probability that the selfsame majority favours the continued primacy of the Nervous Ordo hardly tells in favour of the N.O. Mass (or no mas, as the case may be).
"Or are you going to try to make some lame equivocation between the Democratic Party and the Novus Ordo?"
I doubt that the equivalence would be lame. Do you know any traditionalists at all who have voted Democrat?
That doesn't follow.
If the majority of American Catholics who favor the Novus Ordo eat carrots, does that "hardly tell in favour" of the Novus Ordo? Or of carrots?
Non-sequitur.
Do you know any traditionalists at all who have voted Democrat?
Other than on the anonymity of Free Republic, I don't know any traditionalists.
A slight correction. I'm not sure exactly what I desire to come to pass. My own desire isn't the point anyway. It's about what is right regardless of individual preference.
I think the abolition of the Tridentine was a terrible thing in the first place. Despite its flaws, I'm not sure abolition of the NO would be any wiser. The Church needs to stop making hasty and radical decisions, and do a better job listening to the wisdom of the ages. That was always the Church's strength in the past. Only when the Church filled with "modern" men did she forget this.
I am definitely in favor of a papal declaration giving universal permission to celebrate the Tridentine to any Catholic priest. But I'm not calling for supression of the Novus Ordo (though suppression of Modernism and other heresies would be nice).
I totally agree that Church attendance would not automatically or quickly follow restoration of the old Mass. But I think it is a step in the right direction. The Tridentine treats the Mass as a serious and reverent matter - not something to be taken lightly. That's something the NO seems to leave "optional" - it's reverent in some parishes and not at all in others. That fact alone leads me to believe the old Mass would not be so lightly avoided as the current one.
I don't disagree. This among other problems was one of the reasons the Church saw a need for another Vatican Council. However the new rite was specifically promoted as a tool to reverse this trend. That never happened. If anything, the trend accelerated.
That's your opinion. My opinion is that most Catholics would not choose to attend Mass celebrated in a language they do not understand.
That is a nonsensical statement in light of Church history. First of all, what is this Protestant-flavored nonsense about Catholics not understanding the Latin of the Mass? Part of Catholic education through the centuries was dedicated to teaching this understanding. It was apparently quite successful, because Latin stopped being a popularly understood language around the fifth century, and it wasn't until the late twentieth that it was deemed incomprehensible - and in that case by people who have shown no greater devotion to a Mass in their own native language.
Secondly, why do you imagine Catholics throughout the ages chose a Mass in Latin when other worship services in their own languages were available? Mass in one's native tongue wasn't exactly a groundbreaking discovery of the Novus Ordo. It has existed in various forms throughout the entire history of the Church. Yet when the faithful were most faithful, language was not an issue. And when the faithful became less so the change in the language of the Mass did not convince them to stay.
I don't disagree. But, over time, the NO would have gained the greater acceptance.
Don't you believe the same is true of the Tridentine rite in the "popular vote" climate of today? Wouldn't the same formula apply?: Give it a fair chance and it will gain broader acceptance.
They were bored, with a priest with his back to them, praying silently in a language they didn't understand.
And now they are bored with priests performing the Novus Ordo. Bored to the point they avoid going entirely in numbers the old Mass never knew. Despite your characterization, the NO isn't some popular festive event people look forward to in large numbers. Most view it as a chore, as they always have. Only now, not as many bother to attend at all.
The NO has not abolished the boredom you attribute to the Tridentine rite. So perhaps your concerns about the facing of the priest and the language of the Mass were never the source of boredom in the first place.
But the idea that there is some kind of groundswell for reinstatement of the Tridentine Mass as the normative liturgy is simply ludicrous on its face.
Groundswell would probably be stretching the point, but something unexpected is certainly going on. An entire generation never taught the Tridentine rite is beginning to fill the pews where it is offered. Young seminarians are flocking to seminaries where they are trained in the old Mass. And all of this in an environment of hostility from their bishops, priests, and in large part their parents.
The Church does not (and should not) make quick, radical changes in the normative form of the Mass. These sort of issues are supposed to take generations. However, in a few generations, the normative form of the Mass question may not sound quite as ludicrous.
LOL!! Thank you for making my point. As "narses" noted, you can pick up a 1962 missal. These feature Latin on one page with English on the opposing page. Even with the English translation, you will find yourself trying to "follow along" rather than participating.
In the Tridentine Mass, the priest has his back to you throughout most of the mass and the altar boys speak the Latin responses on behalf of the congregation. You are an observer, rather than a participant. Here are links to the side by side Latin/English texts.
Here is another web site with extensive links, including an address where you can purchase a missal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.