Old Mass/New Mass

Fr. Z at WDTPRS made a post here asking for readers, especially those of the younger generation, to email him with brief thoughts on the old mass/new mass question. The responses are there, and in part 2 and part 3. My response was made and posted. All of the responses taken together make an interesting reflection on the question, and as I have continued thinking about it, I'd like to make a more substantial discussion of the topic than was afforded there.

First, I must lay out what I mean by the "old mass/new mass question." Overall, I'd like to discuss my preferences, how I arrived at them, and also the role the Extraordinary Form (EF) has played in my spiritual life at different points.

As I have said before, I didn't much care about the Faith, nor attendance at Church through my freshman year of college. When I returned to the Church as a sophomore, I had only moderate religious formation, and very little understanding of liturgical history. Luckily, though, I had friends who were also willing to learn, and as a group, we grew in the Faith. A close friend of mine had heard that there was a place in the Archdiocese (of Chicago) that had a special indult to celebrate the "Latin Mass" (as we called it). We decided to take in the Mass, and see what it was all about. I looked at some online missal and saw a general structure I recognized, and I figured that since I had been going to Mass all my life, a little Latin wouldn't deter me from knowing what was going on.

We were late, got a little lost on the way, and walked in during the Kyrie. I recognized that; it was one of the last things I recognized. Because we were late, I didn't notice the mass guides in the back of the Church when we came in. The experience was something wholly other. I was lost the whole time, and just did my best to pay attention to the bells. Come communion time, they used a communion rail. I had never received my Lord and Savior directly on my tongue in my life, let alone while kneeling. I think I knew not to say "Amen," but that was about all I knew. Moved by the sacredness of this mode of receiving, from that point on I only received on the tongue.

Reflecting on that Mass later, and attending the EF mass a number of times again, I was moved by the realization that this Mass was one and the same mass that my parents grew up with, and my grandparents had for much of their lives, and my great-grandparents, and back and back and back. I was also struck by the sanctity that the priests and servers showed toward the celebration of the Mass, something I had not seen anywhere else I had been. I also attended Mass at the same parish in the Ordinary Form (OF) in Latin.

Now, with my initial experiences of Mass in Latin laid out, I'd like to go on to discuss my preferences. In short, for the most part, and all things being equal, I'd prefer to go to an OF mass over an EF mass. Part of this is definitely familiarity; I think if I had only known the EF mass and then had limited exposure to the OF mass, I'd at least be leery of it. But, there is more than that. I like hearing what the priest is saying, and having responses given by the congregation rather than by the servers.

I don't attend the EF mass very often, despite having two nearby places to attend every Sunday. I used to go more often when I was in Chicago. I would go when I felt like I needed "an infusion of sanctity" or tradition, or just wanted to attend a liturgy which was done carefully. Today, the parish I attend does not do things "perfectly" (to my liking, at least), but things aren't off the wall either. I would probably more regularly attend if the EF mass was offered as one of the regular liturgies by my parish.

I haven't yet touched on the language issue. On this point I am still torn. I would like to see much greater use of the Latin language, but to what extent I am not sure. Of course, I think that things like the readings of the Mass ought be in the vernacular, but I'm not sure which parts of the ordinary ought be in the vernacular languages, and which others in Latin. I don't accept the premise that people won't be able to relate to or understand prayers in Latin, or whatever the usual complaint is. How many people even pay attention to the words of the Confiteor or the Credo when they hear it in English? Would it be any worse if the prayers were in Latin? The thing I like about keeping large parts of the ordinary in Latin is the uniformity and universality of worship among the Roman (Latin) Rite Catholics.

Finally, I will take a quick detour to discuss the reform I wish had taken place after the council. The mass I would like to see is essentially the EF mass, but with the points I've mentioned above, that is audible prayers by the priest (at least some of those prayers ought be audible), and responses given by the people. Throw in the additionally extended lectionary, and we've got a renewed liturgy which is clearly in continuity with Tradition. This, I think, having read things like Sacrocanctum Concilium, is what the council foresaw.

Motu Proprio Reflections

The Holy Father, some days ago issued a much anticipated Motu Proprio entitled Summorum Pontificum. An official English version has not yet been issued, and so I will be referring to the version located in the Catholic Culture Library. I find it interesting that the letter accompanying the Motu Proprio (of which there is an official English version) was just as long as the Motu Proprio itself.

The Pope first lays out the history of the liturgy, from Gregory the Great to Pius V, to the present. Then we get to the legal parts.

The Paul VI (1970) mass is the normal Rite and order of mass to be used. The use of the 1962 edition of the Missal is, however, allowed as an "extraordinary form of the liturgy of the Church".

Masses without people can be celebrated using either Missal. Community celebrations within religious communities (orders or whatnot) can habitually celebrate the 1962 liturgy if their superiors allow it. The exception here, which I don't really understand is that such permissions don't extend to the Triduum for masses without the people. I find that odd.

"Art. 5. § 1 In parishes, where there is a stable group of faithful who adhere to the earlier liturgical tradition, the pastor should willingly accept their requests to celebrate the Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal published in 1962, and ensure that the welfare of these faithful harmonises with the ordinary pastoral care of the parish, under the guidance of the bishop in accordance with canon 392, avoiding discord and favouring the unity of the whole Church.

§ 2 Celebration in accordance with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII may take place on working days; while on Sundays and feast days one such celebration may also be held.

§ 3 For faithful and priests who request it, the pastor should also allow celebrations in this extraordinary form for special circumstances such as marriages, funerals or occasional celebrations, e.g. pilgrimages.

That article is the one that does the real action. In other words, if there is a group who really wants daily mass (or a Sunday mass) in a parish using the 1962 missal, and a priest who is qualified to say such a mass, they can have it. The bishop is given power here to make sure people follow the rules and don't go off the deep end, or create a rift. I find section 2 interesting; that there can be one such celebration on Sundays is interesting. I don't think this will affect parishes who already celebrate more than one old mass, because they will have special permission from their bishop.

And so, Motu Proprio.

The news coverage is interesting. I'm not sure why liberals are outraged (as the media reports) because they will probably never see a Tridentine mass, and won't have to if they don't want to. Jews, apparently are outraged, and the Anti-Defamation League has even issued a statement. There is one prayer for the Jews on Good Friday, in which the conversion of the Jews is prayed for. The Church prays for everyone's conversion, even (or especially) Catholics. Jews are God's chosen people (still) and play a special role in salvation history. We love the Jews, and want only the best for them, I don't see how this is offensive, nevermind that it is only once a year.

The letter from the Pope has a lot of good insight in it as well.

News reports and judgments made without sufficient information have created no little confusion. There have been very divergent reactions ranging from joyful acceptance to harsh opposition, about a plan whose contents were in reality unknown.

I am even a little guilty of this, though I did discuss what aspects of a plan I would not like, not that I'm opposed to the Motu Proprio.

This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.

Then, after discussing the love many had for the liturgy, the truth comes out about this:

Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.

Greater truth hasn't been told in a while. Not following liturgical norms really harms people and really causes them ill feelings. My own grandmother left our home parish (her parish of probably 60 years running) because of this reason (the priest refusing to ring the bells at the consecration was the straw that broke the camel's back).

In the second place, the fear was expressed in discussions about the awaited Motu Proprio, that the possibility of a wider use of the 1962 Missal would lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities. This fear also strikes me as quite unfounded. The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often. Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful.

Ha! This apparently is the complaint of the so-called liberals I saw on the news. They neither know Latin nor are well formed liturgically, and therefore will not even have a claim to request a 1962 mass.

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.

I wonder if the Dominican Rite, or the other particular missals of the Latin rite will be brought back some time. I think I would like to experience them as well.

I think that the traditionalists will be happy, and I think now the Bishops will have the job of making sure the faithful can get these masses if they want them, and likewise making sure that people stay faithful and don't become traditionalists. The liberals won't notice any difference, neither will the Jews.

-JG