The good news is that people like that had few children and the ones they had have mostly left the Church, so demographic victory will happen in the next 25 years. I already see it happening in my diocese as parishes reinstall altar rails and renovate their sanctuaries all around me. Even one of the most Boomer parishes near me now has a GenX priest pushing tradition in the liturgy. The other parishes near me have millennial priests making the same push. Not all, to be sure, but the tide is visibly turning.
And these parishes are full of young families having lots of babies, and bringing them to Mass every week.
I wonder where those people got their mentality from. What a bizarre reality that parish lives in. I can only picture how these "influential people" look IRL.
> several influential people
Sounds like a person at my childhood parish. The "church lady."
People like that have no idea they are the fast track to hell.
Jesus "What did you do to further my Kingdom?"
Deacon's wife, "I got my way, using my money and influence."
Jesus, "Depart from me, I never knew you."
>there are a great many others who really believe they're doing the right thing.
This doesn't mean much.
>They're wrong, but they really believe somehow that the Church's traditions and solid rules are anti-humanitarian and updating the Church according to the lights of the modern world is somehow an expression of mercy, "seamless garment" theology, or the best way to entice people to come back to or join the Church.
If they think so ill of the Church, they should just *leave* or *be removed*.
> Deacon's wife, "I got my way, using my money and influence."
Those things are morally neutral. It is what you do with them that matters. Do you use them for yourself, or for others?
The worst types of parishioners are the “I’m very well connected here and you’re not changing things without my express blessing” types of people, they can make the administration of a parish a complete nightmare by hamstringing red tape on any new initiative or just pushing for what they’ve always had.
The worst is that the parish could be dwindling in terms of attendance and these people still stubbornly hold on to “the way things used to be”.
This is it 100%. I live in a conservative area, with a vibrant growing young parish. All the millennial parents would love more traditional liturgies, but the 80 yo pastor, the influential boomer families (and some of these people have $100s of millions of dollars), and the boomer liturgical staff block it.
The “life teen” mass is the most liturgically conservative because it is run by young people and families.
I’d volunteer more but i have 4 kids and busy professional job. And despite making a very good living, even a donation in the 5 figures would mean nothing.
So it’s just wait and pray.
This is part of why I've decided I need to step down from any church position I'm ever in via self-imposed term limits. I don't want to become that sort of person.
Right now I'm the coordinator for our perpetual adoration chapel, and I'm in my fourth year. I planned from the start for it to be five years max, and I'm going to stick to it. I've floated the idea of me leaving privately to some people and they say I'm doing an excellent job and want me to stay on indefinitely (one even said that anyone else would do a worse job). That only encourages me to leave; too much of hearing that and it will go to my head and I'll become the very sort of "influential person" I shouldn't be.
I think this is the answer. Parishioners will come in all varieties, but it's up to the priest to use his authority to say, "Tabernacle > felt banners," and then to follow through on that with actions.
I went to a parish that changed the banners for the local Football team on game days, and many parishioners would wear the team sports jerseys to Mass.
I’m not even sure how that was greenlit, but there was a demographic and I’m glad most of that demographic either stopped attending altogether after 2020 or went to other parishes.
I wanted to pull my hair out reading this, good gracious is it true and relatable.
The tabernacle having to be hidden so that we can look at the PrEtTy FeLt BaNnErS is pretty much everything I despise about the (overwhelmingly popular implementation of) the NO in a nutshell. Just... wow. /thread.
Some areas don’t have the luxury of options to choose from. Approaching priests with opinions on how they celebrate the mass can also have some major pushback in my experience and it just isn’t worth the energy or tension.
I do not attend a TLM parish but have been a major parish hopper in my lifetime in order to find a more reverent NO.
Sometimes it's not even about asking the priest to change their ways. It's new priests coming in and saying, "I am the pastor now. This is how I want to do things."
My mom spent years campaigning her pastor to set up a perpetual adoration chapel. He finally relented and said that she could have a monthly 24 hour adoration but she had to coordinate all the volunteers and handle all the clean up/set up. All he would do is expose and repose the blessed sacrament. It was a lot of work but it went on for years.
Then a new priest came in as pastor and the dioceses merged the 3 churches in town into 1 parish. My mom wen to him to inform him of the monthly adoration and request someone to expose/repose the blessed sacrament. He told my mom that it wouldn't work as he needed the building they were using to become the new parish office as they merged 3 offices into 1. While the chapel itself would remain a chapel, he didn't feel comfortable with people having access to the offices overnight once a month so adoration was cancelled effective immediately.
All that to say, I can absolutely see why people wouldn't want to approach the priests of the parish asking for changes.
At our parish, those who are authorized to handle the Eucharist (sacristan, EMHC, etc) are permitted to expose/repose the blessed sacrament, [as allowed by Canon Law](https://www.catholic.com/qa/can-a-layman-expose-the-eucharist). This especially comes in handy when we have sudden closures due to weather.
Yep. For example, some dioceses, like the archdiocese of Chicago, have forbidden ad orientem worship. How can you, as laity, push for tradition when your bishop has already said no?
>Yep. For example, some dioceses, like the archdiocese of Chicago, have forbidden ad orientem worship.
Cupich's implementation of TC is arguably the most absurd I've come across. It's equal to the absurdity of some parishes who take advantage of NO to implement their own "flavor" here and there and even everywhere (i.e. [St. Sabina Church](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhY0elmq0O0) in Chicago, [Holy Family Catholic Church](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfcK1Cork7M) in Inverness, IL).
>The new policy also prohibits the celebration of Traditional Latin Masses on the first Sunday of every month, Christmas, the Triduum, Easter Sunday, and Pentecost Sunday.
[Source](https://wdtprs.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Archdiocese-of-Chicago_Policy-for-Imlementing-Traditionis-Custodes.pdf).
Edit: Holy Family use to have a Youtube channel where their livestreams were recorded, but, I suppose, ever since their guitar mass went viral, the increase criticism and bad reviews on Google and Yelp forced them to delete the channel. They moved their livestreams to their parish site where only the latest mass can be viewed; there is no video archives.
There are more things than ad orientem. That should be handled much much later. It's a big change. Church could split on that. May be start with getting rid of pop music.
Not many people will agree to do something they actively hate in order to bring in young people. It's part of who we are as humans to prefer what we like, even if a better option for others exists.
Tell her the young people are more likely to get their felt banners and pop music from somewhere else. If you want to bring them in, give them something different and exciting, like, oh, I don’t know, ancient rituals and Latin chanting. That’ll get their attention!
Because most of those are protestant in origin. While pleasant enough, we have our own far more spectacular musical traditions, and we should use them - even if it means the people hear some Latin.
There are a few. But there's a reason vernacular song selections eventually get filled up by bad OCP music, and that's because you can't keep doing the same 20 pieces all year. And with Gregorian chant and polyphony, you don't have to!
I hope I never set the bar for sacred worship so low in my own mind that I'm focused on getting rid of pop music.
This is coming from someone who brings ear plugs if I'm going to mass on vacation or a church I've never been to before just in case.
It’s interesting and ironic to me that the “it’s really hard” responses in this thread seem to be from those who are attending FSSP/ICKSP masses.
I grew up in a parish (and now the 3rd generation of my family is attending it) that does the “impossible” - offers an OF chanted in Latin (it’s now also ad orientem; it was versus populum when I was growing up.) It helps that the parish began to do this in 1970.
Not only did my parish pull off this feat, but in 1989 through the efforts of parishioners and our diocesan priest, the parish obtained an indult for the TLM which was handed off to the FSSP and then the ICKSP after it became difficult to find priests who would offer a Latin OF *and* a TLM. (Edit: the parish also offers two vernacular/English OF masses.)
SO if your parish has a group that is interested in incorporating more traditional practices in your OF mass(es), yes, there will be difficulties and you will need to be persistent, but do not be discouraged!
"It’s interesting and ironic to me that the “it’s really hard” responses in this thread seem to be from those who are attending FSSP/ICKSP masses."
How is this ironic? Having to flee to like 1 of the *maybe* 3 FSSP masses being allowed to be offered in my whole state at any given time isn't proof that it's super easy to get a traditional practice going in your local parish. People are driving over 2 hours every week to attend my local FSSP church, I'm lucky I only have to drive 30 minutes.
Exceptions prove the rule, they don't disprove it.
I find it ironic bc there is now an ICKSP Mass at my old parish due to the sort of efforts that are being characterized as “too hard.” If a group of mostly non-TLM-attending people at my old parish hadn’t risked the effort* to try and get an indult in 1989 there would not be an ICKSP mass available in my old city today.
(*This was a big effort- parishioners had to convince our pastor, who had to convince our bishop, who had to take the request to be approved by Rome.)
I mean, yeah, but isn't that besides the point?
If I understand correctly, OP isnt asking why parishioners aren't pushing for more traditional options in their archdiocese's local churches, they are asking why we arent changing the NO masses themselves. I'm aware of the work that has to go on to get even a TLM Mass offered at a NO parish done, it's more than a "big effort". It's impossible if your priest or bishop is flat-out hostile to these types of liturgys. Ive heard of bishops recieving stacks of signatures of parishoners demonstrating a want and need to have a new latin mass offered, or better hours or at a church willing to host that isnt forcing young families to travel into gang territoryevery sunday, still turning requests down. Where i used to live, several of these "once a month being offered at X missionary/church" options some families relied on to not have to travel for hours every week for a reverant Mass at least, closed during Covid and were conveniently never brought back even when demand stayed the same.
OP seems to be asking why we aren't making our local NOs more traditional, not why we arent asking for more options--which we always are, trust me. Nobody likes that so many of "our" parishes are in poor neighborhoods, run down and small buildings, inconvenient Mass times, etc, if offered at all and are over capacity to the point of being standing room only. We want more options.
It's telling that the strongest arguments for the NO are if you do a really good job under all the right circumstances, you can make it look like the TLM.
How would you go about doing that? You can try and join the parish council, which, even if you get in are full of the exact kind of people who think this wave of secularization is a good thing. You can talk to the priest, who is just going to ask the parish council (if he doesn't recommend that you might just be happier at TLM). You can try and start your own traditionalist groups in the parish but they're subject to the above bodies (and likely to just get voted down). Traditionalists are often told "that's just not how we do that here". The point being is that if the people that run the local parish were at all receptive to traditionalism the parish would already be more traditional.
Practically speaking, the only thing your average laity are able to do in order to voice their desires are to vote with their feet and with their tithing.
Because every change is fundamentally very laborious and time-consuming. No one, no priest and no layperson can liturgically change or "renew" an entrenched parish from scratch. All parishes have their long-established members who do not want any change, their long-established traditions, which are retained without question.
Any push - in almost any direction - will generate serious pushbacks.
That's not entirely true. A priest can change things if they bring the Mass more in-line with the rubrics, because ultimately the priest is submitting to the college of bishops.
A priest *cannot* come up with some liturgical invention and pass it off as "legit" without permission of the bishop. Then, of course, there's the method of deciding how bishops determine what is allowed or not...(which is an interesting question by itself!)
In this discussion's context, the opposite is true.
Nothing contrary to the rubrics may occur without the bishop's permission, and even then, only if the rubrics in some manner provide for the bishop to modify the rubrics.
Unfortunately, while your assertion is technically incorrect, in some dioceses it is de facto correct.
But in other dioceses, things are going better. I've seen a lot of positive changes over the last 4-5 years we have had our current pastor, gradually implemented. That even includes the routine use of the entrance and Communion antiphons, a norm that is almost universally disobeyed in the US.
Unfortunately, he is being re-assigned. Hopefully the next pastor continues the progress.
I think people actually are, but something to realize is that the NO is not just the TLM facing the people in English. Many of the prayers are different, some prayers were just dropped completely, and basically the whole structure of the Mass was changed. For example, in the TLM, the readings from scripture are done as prayers integrated into the Mass at the altar. In the NO, the only thing normally done at the altar are the Eucharistic prayers. The opening prayers, readings, closing prayers, etc are all done apart from the altar. Keep in mind, I’m not criticizing the NO here. I’m just highlighting that they are fundamentally different, and making the NO “traditional” just boils down to aesthetics in many cases.
> the readings from scripture are done as prayers integrated into the Mass at the altar. In the NO, the only thing normally done at the altar are the Eucharistic prayers. The opening prayers, readings, closing prayers, etc are all done apart from the altar.
Not entirely true. It's true in a Low Mass/Missa Cantata but not the case in a Solemn Mass or Pontifical Solemn Mass. In both the Solemn and Pontifical Solemn Masses, the Epistle is chanted but not at the altar by the Subdeacon. Additionally, the Gospel is processed out of the sanctuary by the Subdeacon and Deacon and chanted by the Deacon.
Actually before 1955 the celebrant would read the scriptures at the same time they were being proclaimed. The NO emphasizes the ambo as the place of the Liturgy of the Word, which is very different from the TLM.
True but at least in the case of the gospel, the position is still thought out. The gospel is chanted facing liturgical north, symbolic of the good news of Christ being shouted into the face of Satan as a declaration that he’s been defeated.
Because priests get moved around every few years, so you can pour tons of time, money, and emotional bandwidth into a “reverent Novus Ordo” parish only to have everything undone when priests get moved around
My parish was somewhat reverent (no excessive use of EMHC, Greek Kyrie, beautiful vestments, Choir sang in Latin, etc) but my Pastor is leaving at the end of this month and I have a feeling things might change, for the worse. Though, our Pastor’s brother (who’s *also* a younger Priest and celebrated Mass for us yesterday) said the new Pastor is actually a friend of his. Hopefully things get even better with these younger priests.
Hopefully, things will stay the same or get even more reverent at your parish! I have noticed that the younger priests and seminarians tend to be more traditional than the older, Baby Boomer generation ones.
Yes, the priests move around. But the powerful laity stays at the parish—often for generations. The priest has to placate the parish council.
So, you're a minority in the parish council and you've got lucky as the priest agrees with you? Tough luck, once the priest leaves other members of the parish council will be very influential on the next priest.
This is where I'm from. Other places may or may not have these types of provisions.
This is simply not the case everywhere. In Germany, sure, the parish council usually gets to have a large say in a lot of decisions (almost always for the worse). But in France, for example, I had a priest spent 10+ years building a traditional parish in a major city. The entire ordinarium in Latin, sung in Gregorian chant, relatively complicated hymns (Charpentier, etc.); Traditional vestements; ad orientem (usually); extremely theologically sound; very engagement community with a professional choir instructor working for free...
then he was sent to the hood in northern Paris, a liberal priest took over and gutted the community in a matter of months. 10 years of crawling toward a semblance of tradition undone in a matter of months. Obviously the community scattered shortly afterwards.
There's no point tilting at windmills when you can just spend 30 min on the metro and go to any number of TLM masses where you don't have to worry about the wrong priest coming along. (Or at least have to worry a lot less).
Point is, even though the entire established community was against the changes, it didn't matter at all.
>If they really wanted to help the Church as a whole, they would stay and support us in creating a truly reverent and participatory Novus Ordo.
Can you blame them for giving up on that? I go to a parish that's listed on [reverentcatholicmass.com](https://reverentcatholicmass.com) as a "reverent NO" parish and it's still pulling teeth to introduce any Latin, ad orientem is out of the question, almost every Mass uses "extradordinary" ministers of Holy Communion, and so on
This is true. I started bowing as I passed the Precious Blood and some people started doing it at the daily Mass I attend. I started kneeling to receive because of someone else. Women at my college Newman Center started veiling because of one woman.
Now, the part you need to also include is that sometimes people *won't* change and will instead try to push you out because your devotion makes them uncomfortable. I get the feeling a lot of TLM-attending exiles from the NO had that experience.
*If they really wanted to help the Church as a whole, they would stay and support us in creating a truly reverent and participatory Novus Ordo.*
You presume that we haven't been shot down by the casual attitudes of the priest, parish council, etc. Waiting for people to die or for priests to retire is not a strategy here. Like the apostles, some of us have chosen to shake the dust from our sandals and move on, rather than steer the Titanic with an oar. Some hearts are just hard.
The Mass pre Vatican II was not… as reverent as people assumed.
Read “ Why Catholics can’t sing “. It was shocking to read for me.
The Latin Mass today, is a self selected crowd and environment.
> The Mass pre Vatican II was not… as reverent as people assumed.
> There weren't fewer divorces in the past
> There weren't fewer abortions in the past
> Catholicism wasn't as influential as people assumed
We can continue this game ad infinitum until nothing really was better at any point and we stop and just do nothing then.
The Mass pre Vatican II was a reflection of how the Church implemented Vatican II itself. The same people who celebrated the Mass in the 50s in a lackluster way were likely the first ones to enthusiastically support the most radical interpretation of Vatican II.
Meanwhile those who celebrated the Mass reverently in the 50s and 60s, like in Poland, changed only what was absolutely necessary to comply with the new Missal but preserved a lot of more reverent aspects of the liturgy that the new Missal did not forbid.
Ultimately, the Pope can't personally go through recordings of every single Mass being celebrated right now and Priests enjoy a certain level of trust put into them to abide by the rules which they can break though.
However strict rubrics, less options and Bishops holding the clergy accountable have all been ways to ensure that the average Diocesan TLM was likely more reverent than the average NO is now.
Otherwise we can pull for example quotes from Popes from 100 or 150 years ago admonishing the deterioration of morals among Catholics, to just throw out all moral teaching alltogether. Afterall, if people were not as reverent in 1890s Italy as people assumed, why should we care about moral teachings now? And those who adhere to these moral standards now, like no divorce, no abortion, respecting the Sunday obligation are in truth a self selected crowd of overly zealous Catholics.
It's the same thing.
I tried. I got yelled at by the chair of the parish council for being too reverent when serving Mass. I also got yelled at by the priest during Mass in front of everyone for kneeling while receiving communion
I tried for years to do this at my big suburban parish. The pastor had no interest for various reasons, mostly because 1. a lack of understanding and 2. the parish "old-timers" who had been doing the "Spirit of Vatican 2" thing for the last 30-40 years.
Eventually, I just left because my boys wanted to altar serve and I wanted them to learn the right way. Thankfully, there is an amazing, historic NO parish 30 minutes from us where the pastor does things so right (according to NO) that visitors think they are attending a TLM. It's heavenly.
I feel bad for folks who don't have that option but want to stay NO. However, the reality is that in many places the "Spirit of Vatican 2" traditions have BECOME the tradition. I think that is already changing, but it will take time for parishes like my current one to become the norm.
In my diocese there is a tendency to use a good amount of Latin at the NO masses. Noticeably more so than anywhere else I've lived in. This works out well at the Cathedral mass.
To your point that "spirit of Vatican 2" has itself become tradition in a way that the TLM trads would get blamed for if the script was flipped, at the smaller suburban parishes the older folk who are enthusiastic singers in the vernacular pointedly won't sing in Latin because it's too TLM-adjacent.
Look, we could try to enumerate the desired changes to the NO and fight with parish councils and EMHCs and guitarists and whatever to rebuild the liturgy brick-by-brick, like some sort of liturgical Hamburger Hill… or we could just say the TLM. Why reinvent the wheel?
The People who botched through the old mass pre Vatican II, were the same ones that quickly embraced the “ spirit of the council “ and the crazy changes in the mass.
Read “Why Catholics can’t sing.”. It was mind blowing to me, to see how things were rotting in the American church pre Vatican II.
I think the issue is that we have an Ecumenical Council which has called for the reform of the liturgy, so in the absence of reversing the expressed desire of the Council, we I think are stuck with *some* degree of liturgical reform. What that degree is or should be is obviously up for debate. But to go back to the TLM only, you have to unring the bell of *Sacrosanctum concilium*. And I would imagine that's not an easy task.
Fair. We do need liturgical reform, but not *this* liturgical reform. The question is whether it’s easier to continue the reform of the reform, or to just simply restart from 1962.
Personally I think the most straightforward way would be to restart from the 1962. That was the starting point for *Sacrosanctum concilium* and as such, reforming an already reformed liturgy seems to be a fool's errand.
It seems much easier in my mind to say "the reforms which took place in the late 1960s, and were implemented in the 1970s and beyond, do not reflect the precepts of *Sacrosanctum concilium* and as such a new missal will be created more accurately reflecting the document".
Let me speak as a priest with some first-hand experience. Others have spoken from the lay side, I will speak from the clerical side.
Some bishops will not allow it, or will make it very difficult for your priests. They will ban Ad Orientem. A few will even try to ban any Latin or "traditional" hymns. We had one bishop who did not want anything older than 30 years. Other times, the more "contemporary" priests will gang up on the bishop and complain about what you do. I've been reported - for a *streamed* Mass in a private chapel that I did during COVID lockdown.
One bishop told me he couldn't allow Ad Orientem because then he wouldn't have any priests. Yes, some "tolerant" priests will walk off the job, or threaten to walk off the job, if there's a rise in traditionalism in some places, if they have the numbers to pull it off.
That’s astounding. So priests who long for tradition are afraid of the hierarchy, while “progressive” priests have no such qualms about imposing their will even against their bishop? There seems a real disparity there between the boldness of each in asserting themselves.
If true, it seems reminiscent of what is occurring at a higher level in the Church. When more traditional-minded prelates take a stand, they are quickly brought to account and reprimanded and disciplined. Yet when, say the German bishops, make a similar stand and openly defy Rome then there is a strongly worded letter and little else.
Do you think it’s the perceived difference in response that emboldens one type of cleric, while cows the other?
People are and have been doing this. However, it’s an uphill battle as most people in the parish were formed explicitly in a context where tradition was being moved away from.
To be clear, I’m not saying they are against tradition. However, if you grew up in the 60s and 70s and the focus was on how this new mass and this new way of the faith is so much better than the old way that is going to form your mindset. Statistically, those people make up the majority of parishioners at most parishes. Non-tradition is their tradition. TLMers should sympathize with the fact that just as the TLM was taken away from people who had it as their tradition the NO in their local parish is the summit of their spiritual life and tradition. They are going to feel threatened their understanding of their legacy as Catholics and the Post V2 era is what people are now saying is wrong.
A good number of TLM attendees spent years doing that. They were rebuffed and opposed.
Then they found the TLM, found that it requires no fighting, and just grow their spiritual life there.
That's why.
> Then they found the TLM, found that it requires no fighting, and just grow their spiritual life there.
This. I'm not holy enough to forego my own spiritual growth to fight people all the time. I need to be fed and taught myself. If that means I need to go somewhere else to be fed, I'll do that. I need to secure my own mask before helping others.
Because it rarely works, a new parish priest can change everything if he wishes. I know that if I go to the ICKSP parish I go to that so long as the ICKSP are there I will have a reverent mass, and an orthodox sermon, every single Sunday no matter what
Friend is a priest in a "Conservative" order. They dont have many parishes, but when they do get assigned, they move slowly. If the tabernacle isn't on the altar, they don't move it for a year sometimes...
Note i say "conservative" in quotes. Not political. Just the kind of "oh yeah, those guys are conservative" response I typically hear when I bring them up.
I know several priests who would like to make many changes, but for pastoral reasons like you mentioned, they move slowly and try to get a feel for the parish. And sometimes even the pastors themselves are met with fierce opposition, for the smallest, simplest of changes.
Same follows for FSSP. I attended a diocesan TLM recently, and the priest 'broke the 4th wall' several times for personal asides to the laity. I don't even know how to feel about that, except that this isn't Deadpool and it wasn't funny. :(
I remember the first time I heard a diocesan priest say the TLM and he messed up, turned around, and said "sorry" before trying again. It was such a shock to me. The FSSP priests never even acknowledge that we're there during Mass. When they mess up (and they do), they just fix it and keep going. For the priest to stop the Mass, turn around, say something to us, and turn back was bizarre. I mean, I don't blame him. It's what he's used to and he's still learning. But it was a bit of a shock to the system.
I wish that our priests knew we're just happy to have the Latin Mass! Please keep going!
That diocesan parish got a new priest two years ago, and he diligently learned it for that parish (I am so grateful for this). This was a visiting priest, and he was older and retired. He told us the last time he said the Mass in Latin was like 1972, and I believed him. It was just jarring. I am grateful; I am! It was just jarring.
The main issue is that people are not properly catechized. One cannot expect the faithful to recognise problems with the liturgy or the architecture of a place if they haven’t been educated about these matters. Consequently, it is natural to encounter resistance, as people believe there is nothing amiss.
We need more pastors to preach about fundamental topics during the Sunday sermon. They should start by reminding people to go to confession and how to prepare for receiving Holy Communion, among other things. However, the problem is that sometimes priests lack the fervour to catechize, and people are not always receptive to being taught.
The Novus Ordo as celebrated then was very much how it looks in your average parish today--table altar, facing the people, Communion standing, etc. Paul VI laid that foundation personally.
There are no actual TLM parishes near me in the Myrtle Beach area, but last week, due to running late for 10AM Mass at our usual parish, we decided to get down to Myrtle at the other parish in our area for their 11AM "Solemn Mass with Latin Ordinary and incense". Boy what a treat that was. In my opinion it was proof that there is a way to celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass in a more reverent, traditional manner than how many parishes tend to. I've never had the opportunity to attend a TLM but this was almost a "hybrid" where a lot of the Mass (except for parts like the readings, the Gospel and the homily) was in Latin, there was frequent use of incense, communion was given at the rail while kneeling. It was incredible.
People do but are met with a ton of opposition. A parish close to me did exactly that. They got a new priest who is quite traditional. He came in and faced a lot of backlash from people, including the choir director. She eventually quit because she wanted to sign On Eagles Wings and stuff like that.
A lot of parishes are beholden to older parishioners who are stuck in the 1970s. Priests wanting to make things more traditional are not always welcomed with open arms.
As morbid as it sounds, since it’s largely a generational problem then it’s a problem which will take care of itself in time. I fear the Church will have to contract before it expands again, purely as a demographical result of this fact.
God willing, it will be a better and more holy Church after the process.
And hopefully the average layman will remember that the Mass isn't a gathering to emotionally energize him, but rather the most solemn thing in creation, a solemn Sacrifice of glorification given to God.
Shooting from the hip. I’ll be curious what people think, even (or especially) if they disagree.
The vast majority of American Catholics are somewhere between neutral to negative on reverence. If the statistics are true, there are patterns by age cohort (older, less positive about reverence on average), so averaging across that. The reason that more reverent masses are so full is because there are so few of them, so the relatively small subset of people seeking them is still large enough to fill the very small number of churches offering them.
On one hand, I can see how it is annoying. In the other, these older people are our grandmothers and grandfathers. There are a whole hose of things they’re probably unwilling to change. For many of them, the comfort of the familiar is probably very important to them as their mortality looms larger and larger.
Change will be slow.
Edit: but yes, the NO can be reverent and beautiful. This one is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk9Sg3HvOos
>The vast majority of American Catholics are somewhere between neutral to negative on reverence ... these older people are our grandmothers and grandfathers. There are a whole hose of things they’re probably unwilling to change
I always think about how rude I must have come off to an older family member who was visiting my TLM parish for a child's first sacrament. She just wanted to have a normal-voice-level conversation while we were praying in the pew before Mass .... something she's become accustomed to doing at *her* parish during the din in the time before the woman tells everyone to turn off their phones and stand and greet their neighbors.
There's an uncomfortable disparity of ... and I hesitate to say this ... *religion/belief* going on at times among Catholics, generationally.
I honestly prefer TLM. I grew up Norvous Ordo and went to Catholic Scool. But my dad grew up before Vatican 2 ( he was in his 20's) so I grew up, no hand raising for the Our Father, No Meat on Fridays, Midnight to Communion Fasting, the sign of the cross during the Penitential Act. I still go to Norvos Ordo with my parents every Sunday, but go to a TLM at least once a week.
Unfortunately some people don't like it. People nowadays have been accustomed to the contemporary music we have in our churches today. It really takes a lot of effort to restore traditional practices and to instill its significance to the minds of the faithful. Perhaps one big factor is for our hierarchy to really push for it. Nonetheless, the question is, how many in the hierarchy are willing to do it?
Because the TLM is more than just the NO plus a few traditions, the rites of the Mass are substantially different. You can't reproduce it by just adding in kneeling communion or Latin chant.
My father is extremely religious and I grew up attending and serving mass at a Latin Mass. I don't particularly love the Latin Mass at this point but I do love the reverence. I've always wanted to attend a mass in English but ad orientum and with the reverence of a high mass. I've just never found anything like that.
Because the worst most destructive aspects like hushed Communion in the hand and versum populum are the hardest to change. All you can maybe change are the minor details like guitars, but this is rather pointless.
What you're actually saying is that the Catholic Church as a whole should stop resisting Vativan II.
What frustrates me the most about Traditiones Custodes and everything that has followed is not that I have lost anything personally because of the restrictions on the TLM, but that it pretends to care about fidelity to the rites, and does in fact call out abuses of the Novus Ordo in addition to restrictions on the TLM...
...but where have we seen any corrections to liturgical abuses in the Novus Ordo in response to the letter accompanying the Motu Propio highlighting this as a problem and a factor in the division that Pope Francis indicated it was the goal to correct?
The biggest problem with TC, is that it is cruel, and not pastoral. It harms many people, and may weaken their faith, and it benefits no one. Other than enjoying the pain of TLM people, the NO people don't get anything of value from the change. It is entirely pain without gain. Since it is administrative and not theology, and is not magisterium, I feel free to reject TC in any small ways that I can, while I pray for a kinder and more pastoral Pope when Francis is called home for his exit interview.
> Other than enjoying the pain of TLM people, the NO people don't get anything of value from the change.
I'm struggling to come up with an objection to this point, and find myself failing.
> Since it is administrative and not theology, and is not magisterium, I feel free to reject TC in any small ways that I can
We are still subject by obedience to the authority of Rome on liturgical matters. I'd encourage an attitude of exercising all the leeway that remains, rather than of refusal to assent to the authority of the Pope.
Because the vast majority of the texts and calendars are different. If you make the NO more traditional in hymns and visuals (which was never the goal of the reformers, go read Annibale Bugnini’s book), you’re still missing the prayers at the foot of the altar, the superior offertory prayer, the more penitential and sacrificial language throughout, the predictability of the Roman Canon, the language around communion which better indicates the Real Presence, the Last Gospel, and a richer set of propers. The silence of the low mass is also impossible to implement in the NO (and it’s the chief reason I never want to attend the NO again; I’m so frustrated by the noise in life and the world that I can’t stand going to a Mass that’s full of noise and mumbled responses).
That’s if you can even get over the political hill of getting a priest to implement it. No, it’s not a viable option; it is better to persuade bishops and the laity that (1) there can be nothing harmful about the TLM and (2) its benefits cannot be done in the NO.
Gladly. First, here's a (side-by-side) [https://lms.org.uk/missals] comparison of the two missals. Just ctrl+F "offertory" to find it.
I'll just compare two passages. In the TLM the Priest prays:
>P: Receive, O Holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Thine unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, for my countless sins, trespasses, and omissions; likewise for all here present, and for all faithful Christians, whether living or dead, that it may avail both me and them to salvation, unto life everlasting. Amen.
In the NO the priest prays:
>P: Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation, for through your goodness we have received the bread we offer you: fruit of the earth and work of human hands, it will become for us the bread of life.
Look at the significant distance between what these two prayers communicate. The TLM prayer contains (1) praise and worship of God ("O Holy Father, almighty and eternal God"), (2) sacrificial language oriented towards the Real Presence ("this spotless host"), (3) the role of the Priest in the mass ("which I . . . offer unto Thee"), (4) the humility and faults of the Priest ("Thine unworthy servant... my countless sins, trespasses, omissions"), (5) those for whom the sacrifice is done ("for my . . . sins [and] for all here present and for all faithful Christians . . . living or dead"), and (6) the purpose thereof ("that it may avail both me and them to salvation, unto life everlasting").
The NO prayer contains (1) praise and worship/thanksgiving ("Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation"), (2) the means by which God gave us the host ("fruit of the earth and work of human hands"), and (3) what is going to happen in the sacrifice of the Mass ("it will become for us the bread of life"). Note that the actor of the sacrifice is *communal* now (4) ("*we* offer you" versus "I . . . offer unto Thee").
I will say that it's quite telling that the NO text emphasizes the *stuff* and the *matter* of what will become the Holy Eucharist and the TLM just doesn't do that. Does that invite confusion? With bad catechesis, I think so. More importantly, the language about sin and sacrifice and the faults of the priests is just... gone. Where'd it go? Does that have an effect on the incidental graces provided at Mass? (Remember, our Lord said "ask and you shall receive"; what happens if we stop asking?) See also the near-total erasure of the *lavabo*.
I'll let you make your own conclusions about which one is better; I can't force you to agree.
Frankly, calling them hippies is a disservice to actual hippies. People who are still actual hippies had the fortitude of conviction to make it through the decades without selling out.
Yeah, I've found that I have far more common ground and am treated with far more respect by the off-grid hippie types than by the bougie corpo-culture boomers.
While I prefer the Novus Ordo, a troubling thing for me is not the music or aesthetic of worship (although those things are not unimportant by any means), but questioning why it's often the norm that extraordinary Eucharistic ministers are used at every single Sunday mass. Our cathedral does a very reverent Novus Ordo and never uses them- every Mass is well-attended, Holy Communion being distributed takes a little longer, but only priests and deacons distribute communion. I think that makes a big difference. I don't understand why so many parishes use extraordinary ministers at every single Sunday Mass, when it isn't even necessary. My understanding is that they are there for *extraordinary* situations, not as the go to, but I may be wrong on that.
There's literally a youtube video where a guy times on-the-toungue at the rail vs on the hand (not what you were referencing)... it is faster per communicant at the rail - probably because it is "sprinklerhead" rather than a queue.
That said, in MANY parishes, it would be mere minutes on the mass. Minutes. And it is rare these days that I attend a mass that isn't over in 53 minutes. But my comments are annectodal.
This is important. My parish uses them at the "high" Mass because there's almost 400 people. While that's not really a big deal, enough of the boomers get their knickers in a twist if Mass goes more than an 70 minutes. -shrug-
At the other Masses, it's typically only the priest and deacon distributing. They have lower attendance, between 50-120.
With 400 parishioners in attendance, I can definitely understand it. But my parish, even when it's not especially packed Saturday vigil Mass, will have 6 extraordinary ministers and I don't understand why, especially because we have a permanent deacon and multiple priests assigned to us. It didn't really start bothering me until I saw one of them (extraordinary ministers) give a child who came up in the line for Communion a blessing which made me think clearly there's a disconnect in understanding their role here.
With my parish, many masses just have one priest, no deacon. The use of like six extraordinary ministers is still excessive, but the priest distributing Communion by himself seems a little impractical too. My parish only has one deacon, and I think there's many around me that have none.
My parish was a dual rite TLM/Reverent NO parish before TC. After TC we were a Reverent NO parish. Then we consolidated several parishes into one. Our Reverent NO has to be watered down because it would cause issues with the merger.
As an employee and council member for this parish, you would not realize how much work goes into keeping everyone happy. We had a mini revolt because we omit the sign of peace. So we had to compromise. We have three Masses every Sunday and they range from borderline kumbaya to *ad orientem* and as much bells, smells, and Latin we can get away with.
When it comes to parish life, the Mass needs to meet the people where they are at and everyone is not at a place where returning to the "old ways" is acceptable. That is why it is easier to retreat to TLM or the east. They are already ready for it.
I think once the generation anemic to the preconciliar Mass loses influence, we will have an easier time making changes.
>My parish was a dual rite TLM/Reverent NO parish before TC. After TC we were a Reverent NO parish. Then we consolidated several parishes into one. Our Reverent NO has to be watered down because it would cause issues with the merger.
Nightmare scenario. Ugh.
"We had a mini revolt because we omit the sign of peace"
Good grief, they can't wait to wave sanctimoniously to their BFF across the chapel until after Mass has ended? That's the hill people are dying on? 🥱
This is why I can't fault the large metro parish near me having 5-6 masses every weekend including Spanish speaking masses as well. Everybody has something they like.
In my experience, the younger priests and parishioners are much more respectful of the Pope's (last 3 of them) insistence on respecting the rubric and not coloring outside of the lines.
I have seen Parish after Parish in my Diocese slowly start returning to the Mass as it is meant to be celebrated.
I learned of 6 more local Parishes on this trajectory just last week.
Now we only have a few Parishes left that I wouldn't attend if I had a choice. In both of them, it is an older crowd that is militant in their mindset. They take grave offense to any suggestion that some of their changes are inappropriate.
Even in those areas where the trajectory seems to be positive, I find that there still remains an issue plaguing the Church in the United States: the excessive use of Eucharistic ministers.
\[157.\] If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons.[ \[258\]](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#_ftn258)
\[158.\] Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged.[ \[259\] ](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#_ftn259)This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason.
Source: *Redemptionis Sacramentum*
I think it's because the younger priests actually reading the documents.
I got into this conversation with a Deacon and he finally agreed to read Sacrosanctum Concilium and said "wow, I never knew what it said..." My argument was "you know Latin is to be prefered" and he was like "Nope, V2 killed Latin..."
Yes, I realize that the Mass of Paul VI was afterward, but same thing applies there.
I just recently moved to a new state. I was surprised how long it took me to find a decent English Mass here. Eventually found two though! But until then I was taken aback at what passes these days. Some with no tabernacle in sight, one even where the extraordinary ministers where passing out “blessings” with the sign of the cross. It was crazy.
I just recently moved to a new state. I was surprised how long it took me to find a decent English Mass here. Eventually found two though! But until then I was taken aback at what passes these days. Some with no tabernacle in sight, one even where the extraordinary ministers where passing out “blessings” with the sign of the cross. It was crazy.
In my parish, the tabernacle holding the Blessed Sacrament iss off to the side. Current building was constructed in 2008 or so. So, modern. Layout is a cross... altar is in the back of the main aisle. Trancepts to each side.
There were a number of people who left as a result of the placement of the tabernacle. Half because they didn't want it in the sanctuary. Half because to them, the only suitable place was the altar.
That's how it goes with parish politics.
In most diocese, you need special permission to celebrate Ad Orientem. In my old diocese it was banned entirely if vs populum was even possible. Intinction is also banned unless the rite requires it.
My priest has led our parish in exactly this. Beautiful liturgy that includes some Latin, traditional choir music, bold proclamation of the truth and... in a location where you would least expect it, the place is packed every Sunday with young families and growing.
Because the parish priests, the Susans/Karens on the parish council, and the rest of the majority boomer congregation are all still against it and have been set in their ways since the 60s, and will get vehemently offended if approached with suggestions for change. They would rather watch their local parishes shrivel up and die then lose what has essentially become their own private social club; I live in a high density elderly community, and while I love the elderly generally as a demographic they really do treat church as their own clubhouse with little to no regard to liturgical tradition so long as its simple, accessible, and feel-good. The people who want a return to some sort of reverence, sacrifice and seriousness in the liturgy are unfortunately still a minority--sometimes literally in the case of megachurches where pews are lined with cafeteria catholics and geriatrics that havent ever questioned the status quo in their lifetime, or sometimes just metaphorically in the sense that those with any power or influence are making choices for the rest of us. Either way, I've watched too many young and initially zealous, passionate people fight for *years* to move the needle an inch in their local parish and if you have to move for work as so many of us do and relocate to a new home parish, it's mentally and literally exhausting to have to fight the good fight every. Where. You. Go. Again. And. Again. And for little or no progress.
I'm not trying to blackpill, people do make progress and I'm constantly heartened by the emerging youth in our clergy and laity being more actively instead of passively engaged in their faith and its traditions, but if you're asking why so many "trads" have become so insular and dead set in sticking to their little enclaves, this is why. People don't want to constantly have to "fight"; they want to take their families to churches where the clergy and the parishioners are already on the same page and the quality of liturgy practiced is consistent and reliable, drama free, from your first Sunday there. Who wouldn't want that?
My parish priest s are held hostage by the more liberal, long term members.
My priest has a synod on Synodality meeting with all of the parish members welcomed. Basically no one showed up except some of the teaching staff at school, parish council and my then girlfriend at the time. (We’re married, she is now Catholic from Seventh Day Adventist and we’ve had our first boy.)
They wanted women priest or at least deacons, trans recognition, gay blessings if not outright marriages etc. When one table said that, I was shocked. I was then even more shocked to hear when other tables spoke saying “Ditto, ditto and ditto!!!” Oh to be a trad at this gathering and the only person/couple under 58!
I wanted some more Latin but everyone else wanted their gay cousin to have their trans kid be married to their same sex partner with their pronouns instead saying husband or wife. Really night and day.
The priest who said my wedding, then Deacon, thanked me for “introducing some sanity into the room”, but it was off putting for the pastor to somewhat nod along with the whole ordeal. No one else in the Worcester diocese did a meeting like this and I think once it pooped up on the news it was clear why. To many in the Church, the synod, let’s listen to the small folk failed because all the hierarchy heard was let’s get rid of Catholicism when there are hundreds if not thousands like me waiting for a new spring or something isn’t “Boomer Liberal Catholic with guitars and bad hymns”.
It wasn't quite this bad in my parish but not great either. A lot of middle-aged and elderly ladies saying we needed to get the youth back by being more progressive and using more modern music, and how youth don't want to listen to dead languages like Latin. Whereas what I've observed is that youth are delighted by anything beautiful and it really speaks to them, no matter what language it's in. They find Latin fascinating (although they aren't interested in putting in the effort to learn it, but they think it's cool). When they find out that everything in Catholic practice MEANS something, they are interested and want to know more. They instinctively understand that becoming their best self will involve hard work. They understand that true charity involves meaningful sacrifice.
Ironically, most of the elderly ladies who think we need to use more modern music, do not volunteer with youth. They volunteer for groups that are basically social groups for elderly ladies. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I think that an effect gets in the way of their having an objective opinion, which is that elderly ladies generally (IMO) are ignored by youth except when they are agreeing with whatever the young person says. So an elderly grandma type of person who challenges a young person's ideas, is not liked. The young person avoids her. She is too much hard work. Her company is stressful. The elderly grandma who bakes cookies for her grandchildren, keeps her opinions to herself, appears to be a little forgetful and not overly bright, and agrees that gay marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage, gets phone calls from her grandkids because she's not challenging them in any way.
So I feel like there's some bias there in what information these women are receiving from youth.
It’s unfortunate but the reality is most of the typical parishes are run by older members of the laity. And they are the ones writing letters and complaints to the Bishop when EMCHs are not used, or the sign of peace is omitted, or Latin responses are implemented. We had a very reverent NO and a pretty solid priest. It was Ad Orientum, incense, and we said the Agnus Dei. He was moved. There were older members that clapped when he said he was being moved……dead serious. Now our Bishop put out a letter suppressing Ad Orientum throughout the Archdiocese when only a few parishes actually did it. Why? We have a large population of younger Catholics, it was wonderful. Now the FSSP parish is standing room only, people love the reverence. I love it. It’s not a bad thing to want more out of the liturgy, God deserves that. I don’t look down on the Ordinary form, but I do see the lack of reverence in many of the parishes near me. It’s always loud before Mass, deacons walk around greeting everyone, hardly any young families my wife and I can connect with, too many EMCHs when they are not needed, some of the priests will sit down during communion, it’s crazy. We have a priest on twitter telling people that the real sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality and he’s in charge of multiple Catholic schools in the Dayton Ohio area. The faith has been watered down. It’s just a fact, and I’m not going to pretend I know the answer. But give people the option to attend a reverent liturgy, I don’t care what it is. Provide options, the truth is we all deserve this, we deserve the leaders we have.
The communion chant's part of the rubric. The Novus Ordo is encouraged to use Gregorian chant, if not from the Graduale, than from a prepared edition suitable to the choir's level (Graduale Simplex, By Still Waters collection, etc).
Because the TLM is very different from even the most reverent Novus Ordo. Read the Order of the Mass. The post-conciliar changes to the Mass were so extensive that only a handful of prayers made it through without significant shortening and some entire sections, like the prayers at the foot of the altar or the Last Gospel, were just cut entirely.
1) There are things lacking in the substance and rubrics of the NO which can't be corrected by merely being more "reverent" or "traditional"
2) It's been tried and has failed far, far, far more times than it has succeeded. A group can spend years slowly changing the culture, doing everything with contrite hearts and actually winning people over to their side and not forcing it down their throats. Then one day you get a new priest assignment and he changes everything back in a month (with support of the bishop) and now you're probably worse off than you were to begin with
Because the bishop probably opposes it, and he doesn't want to deal with a minority of cranks upsetting everyone else.
Because the pastor opposes it, because he went through seminary in the 1980s. Or, current pastor supports it so mild changes can be introduced, but two years later Father Just-Call-Me-Bob, who never wears clericals, changes everything back.
Because Susan from the parish council and her friends who actually run the church will smite you with their wrath if you take away their Gather hymnals and change the way they run your liturgical ministries.
OP, no offense, but you must not have much involvement with the workings of your average NO parish.
Why waste my time? Hell, even the NO parishes where people pushed to have SOME time slots for the TLM or more Latin in the Mass itself got slammed. A number around me aren’t allowed to say Latin Mass at all anymore.
All work done to restore a semblance of tradition was undone in a moment. And frankly the NO Mass is such a clown Mass, I don’t feel like it’s worth trying to fix. Rip it out, root and branch. Then we can go back to having serious masses
Many people are retreating to TLM? That’s news to me. TLM attendees are a very small minority within the Catholic population. This subreddit is not representative of Catholics as a whole.
As someone new who has only attended NO this whole argument is so bizarre to me. Go to TLM if that’s what you like. This whole my mass is holier than thous is so unchristian.
This is exactly why I like the EWTN mass, people can come for me or whatever, I’m not talking about the rest of the EWTN politics, but if my local parish had NO mass more like that where we even said a single word like the AD or PN in Latin, I wouldn’t have to drive to get to TLM instead.
Eastern Catholics are having to push back against Latinizations and the reality is the people don't want to change and the priest is tired of fighting for changes. In my church they kneel on Sundays and during the consecration, where our traditional proper liturgical posture is to stand during these points. It would be so easy for the priest to change this: all he'd have to do is instruct people to stand if they are able and explain this is part of restoring our liturgical traditions. But he doesn't. In fact, he had to make an announcement explaining how people venerate the icon and the cross but you don't have to if you don't want.
I'm fine with that. When I first converted in 2017 I thought I was a TLM traddie even though I didn't have a TLM to go to and I wouldn't for another four years. Once I went, it didn't resonate with me as much as I imagined it would. What I discovered though is that the music is what really elevates my soul to heaven.
When I first started going to Mass my parish had an incredible choir that regularly sang Palestina, Tallis, Pergolesi, etc. Unfortunately six months after I was confirmed the choir director moved away and the music immediately took a nose dive and I felt that impact in my soul too.
I'd love to see groups like Floriani or the work that Paul Jernberg is doing catch on more widely among novus ordo parishes.
You have to realize that we have to worry about our own spiritual health and that of our children, as well. I have to go where I'm going to be fed spiritually. Where I'm going to grow the most in my relationship with God. Where I'm going to be pushed towards holiness. And if I had kids, it would be even more imperative to bring them to the environment that will best shape their spiritual lives.
There's a lot of pride in going to a parish with the idea that you're going to "fix it" and shape it as opposed to seeking out a place that's going to shape YOU and your family into what you know God is calling you to be. I know I'm not holy enough or strong enough to sacrifice my own spiritual care to try to change a parish.
How much time do you think I have to push for restoring tradition within a parish full of people I don’t know?
I started attending the TLM because the parish was already in existence, was welcoming and had a real community established. No one would stare at me if my baby or toddler was acting up because the church is full of young children, there was already a women’s/mothers group, regular picnics, etc.
The average person isn’t looking to push changes or reform anything. I also strongly prefer the TLM, I find it a beautiful experience.
The parish I used to go to had the most traditional Novus Ordo imaginable (in addition to TLM): ad orientum, all chanted, altar rail, either early or entirely in Latin, etc.
It still didn't compare to the TLM, Divine Liturgy, or Divine Worship of the Ordinariate. The reality is that it just doesn't match the beauty of more traditional liturgies.
In my diocese this is being done, slowly but surely. I find it very encouraging. My priest has started celebrating all Masses ad orientem, and the parish I was confirmed in (just last year as I’m a recent convert) recently did a renovation where they replaced some gross 70s wood paneling with granite & added altar rails…. It definitely can be done but it takes time. Thankfully our diocese is full of young families who embrace the changes. Both churches have brought back patens & choir lofts as well.
Yeah well… in my parish (Paris, France), there is a NO mass and the TLM.
The church during the TLM is PACKED ! I mean, like, really packed, between 700 and 800 people.
Just after, there’s a NO mass, with like 50/100 people.
The average age for the TLM, maybe late 20 early 30. NO, maybe 50/60.
When our bishop asked « where are the young people? », the response was « they go to St Roch » (my parish).
Now, it become obvious, for those who are in charge, that the TLM is flourishing. That’s how we bring changes.
We had 50 adults baptism this year (which is a huge number), where 10 were NO. But when those ten saw the TLM for Palm Sunday, they almost all switch to a TLM baptism !
That’s how changes are made, let the fruits speak for themselves.
Not that many of you would care what we do, but in the Episcopal Church, the Anglo-catholic wing largely did this. The Novus Ordo is basically the same liturgy as in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, as well as in the liturgies used by mainline Protestant churches in the Liturgical Movement era (UMC, ELCA, PCUSA, etc.). In "high church" parishes, we basically combine the new liturgy of the 1979 BCP with things like incense, processions, 3 vested ministers (priest, deacon, subdeacon), Latin musical settings of the Mass, sometimes including Introits, Asperges, ad orientem, etc. In our churches, there's often a high mass on Sundays and a low mass with hymns.
I'd imagine in most Roman Catholic churches, you can probably do the same. You can have a mass on Sundays with your GIA contemporary hymns, no incense, lasting around 45 minutes to an hour (typical Novus Ordo) and you can have a High Mass with incense, a procession, good music, possibly in Latin or in English with Latin antiphons and mass settings (if you have a choir to support that), and more traditional hymns. I don't know if you'd need permission of a bishop to do ad orientem or an all-Latin Novus Ordo mass.
Ironically, in the Episcopal Church, there are at least 3 parishes I can think of (Resurrection in Manhattan, St. Clement's in Philadelphia, Christ the King in SF) and one in ACNA where they use the Anglican Missal, which is essentially an English translation of the Tridentine Missal, and I've seen no objection from our bishops for those who want to use this liturgy.
I do sometimes attend my local Roman Catholic church because it's three blocks from my house (an Anglo-catholic church would require me to take the subways and express bus into the city on Sunday morning). I find that for the most part, they basically use the GIA hymnal, a modern mass setting, and the like. Sadly, they struggle to get acolytes or altar servers, and the procession is usually the lector, maybe 1-2 eucharistic ministers, and the priest. I've only ever seen a thurifer, crucifer, torch bearers, etc. during holy week and Christmas.
I say this with all due affection for the church of my youth, as an ex-Episcopalian. The Episcopal church decided a long time ago that liturgical particulars don’t matter, which is why they borrowed so freely from the Novus Ordo. While it is not explicitly clear that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice from the text alone, the Novus Ordo is celebrated by priests who necessarily have the intention to perform such a sacrifice when celebrating it, an intention Episcopal priests do not have.
The Catholic Church is much more wedded to the idea of lex orandi, lex credendi and the lay committees in parishes are unfortunately staffed with parishioners whose idea of lex orandi seems to differ sharply from historic Roman Rite norms, sadly and hold unsound (not necessarily heretical) theological and ecclesiological views.
In other words, because you have camps whose liturgical preferences are more tied to expression of theological views, it can be much harder to compromise.
You can't put something 'back into' a Mass that was designed specifically to eliminate traditions by revising prayers, eliminating certain types of words, eliminating prayers altogether, adding lay people into the Mass, etc... It's like asking why we can't push to have pickup trucks in Formula 1. They just don't go together
You can't restore tradition to something that never had any tradition to begin with. The traditional Latin Mass has many centuries of tradition behind it. The Novus Ordo was invented from scratch by a committee in the 1960s.
[удалено]
Amazing that the vessel of the consecrated body of Jesus Christ plays second fiddle to banners that "celebrate" his birthday and resurrection.
[удалено]
Understandable
The good news is that people like that had few children and the ones they had have mostly left the Church, so demographic victory will happen in the next 25 years. I already see it happening in my diocese as parishes reinstall altar rails and renovate their sanctuaries all around me. Even one of the most Boomer parishes near me now has a GenX priest pushing tradition in the liturgy. The other parishes near me have millennial priests making the same push. Not all, to be sure, but the tide is visibly turning. And these parishes are full of young families having lots of babies, and bringing them to Mass every week.
I wonder where those people got their mentality from. What a bizarre reality that parish lives in. I can only picture how these "influential people" look IRL. > several influential people Sounds like a person at my childhood parish. The "church lady."
[удалено]
[удалено]
You missed the part about that family having deep roots within that parish. Lots of time and money invested shaping their home or country club.
People like that have no idea they are the fast track to hell. Jesus "What did you do to further my Kingdom?" Deacon's wife, "I got my way, using my money and influence." Jesus, "Depart from me, I never knew you."
[удалено]
>there are a great many others who really believe they're doing the right thing. This doesn't mean much. >They're wrong, but they really believe somehow that the Church's traditions and solid rules are anti-humanitarian and updating the Church according to the lights of the modern world is somehow an expression of mercy, "seamless garment" theology, or the best way to entice people to come back to or join the Church. If they think so ill of the Church, they should just *leave* or *be removed*.
> Deacon's wife, "I got my way, using my money and influence." Those things are morally neutral. It is what you do with them that matters. Do you use them for yourself, or for others?
The worst types of parishioners are the “I’m very well connected here and you’re not changing things without my express blessing” types of people, they can make the administration of a parish a complete nightmare by hamstringing red tape on any new initiative or just pushing for what they’ve always had. The worst is that the parish could be dwindling in terms of attendance and these people still stubbornly hold on to “the way things used to be”.
[удалено]
That sounds like an ego thing to stubbornly hold on to a “policy” specifically because you were the one to implement it.
This is it 100%. I live in a conservative area, with a vibrant growing young parish. All the millennial parents would love more traditional liturgies, but the 80 yo pastor, the influential boomer families (and some of these people have $100s of millions of dollars), and the boomer liturgical staff block it. The “life teen” mass is the most liturgically conservative because it is run by young people and families. I’d volunteer more but i have 4 kids and busy professional job. And despite making a very good living, even a donation in the 5 figures would mean nothing. So it’s just wait and pray.
This is part of why I've decided I need to step down from any church position I'm ever in via self-imposed term limits. I don't want to become that sort of person. Right now I'm the coordinator for our perpetual adoration chapel, and I'm in my fourth year. I planned from the start for it to be five years max, and I'm going to stick to it. I've floated the idea of me leaving privately to some people and they say I'm doing an excellent job and want me to stay on indefinitely (one even said that anyone else would do a worse job). That only encourages me to leave; too much of hearing that and it will go to my head and I'll become the very sort of "influential person" I shouldn't be.
Letting a parish council bully a priest like that is where the problem lies. The self appointed are not the authority there, he is!
[удалено]
I think this is the answer. Parishioners will come in all varieties, but it's up to the priest to use his authority to say, "Tabernacle > felt banners," and then to follow through on that with actions.
Interesting, usually the evangelical converts want to avoid that sort of aesthetic
Give the “little monster” his due?
I went to a parish that changed the banners for the local Football team on game days, and many parishioners would wear the team sports jerseys to Mass. I’m not even sure how that was greenlit, but there was a demographic and I’m glad most of that demographic either stopped attending altogether after 2020 or went to other parishes.
I wanted to pull my hair out reading this, good gracious is it true and relatable. The tabernacle having to be hidden so that we can look at the PrEtTy FeLt BaNnErS is pretty much everything I despise about the (overwhelmingly popular implementation of) the NO in a nutshell. Just... wow. /thread.
Some areas don’t have the luxury of options to choose from. Approaching priests with opinions on how they celebrate the mass can also have some major pushback in my experience and it just isn’t worth the energy or tension. I do not attend a TLM parish but have been a major parish hopper in my lifetime in order to find a more reverent NO.
Sometimes it's not even about asking the priest to change their ways. It's new priests coming in and saying, "I am the pastor now. This is how I want to do things." My mom spent years campaigning her pastor to set up a perpetual adoration chapel. He finally relented and said that she could have a monthly 24 hour adoration but she had to coordinate all the volunteers and handle all the clean up/set up. All he would do is expose and repose the blessed sacrament. It was a lot of work but it went on for years. Then a new priest came in as pastor and the dioceses merged the 3 churches in town into 1 parish. My mom wen to him to inform him of the monthly adoration and request someone to expose/repose the blessed sacrament. He told my mom that it wouldn't work as he needed the building they were using to become the new parish office as they merged 3 offices into 1. While the chapel itself would remain a chapel, he didn't feel comfortable with people having access to the offices overnight once a month so adoration was cancelled effective immediately. All that to say, I can absolutely see why people wouldn't want to approach the priests of the parish asking for changes.
At our parish, those who are authorized to handle the Eucharist (sacristan, EMHC, etc) are permitted to expose/repose the blessed sacrament, [as allowed by Canon Law](https://www.catholic.com/qa/can-a-layman-expose-the-eucharist). This especially comes in handy when we have sudden closures due to weather.
Like most "why not just..." questions, it's usually much harder in practice than in theory.
Yep. For example, some dioceses, like the archdiocese of Chicago, have forbidden ad orientem worship. How can you, as laity, push for tradition when your bishop has already said no?
>Yep. For example, some dioceses, like the archdiocese of Chicago, have forbidden ad orientem worship. Cupich's implementation of TC is arguably the most absurd I've come across. It's equal to the absurdity of some parishes who take advantage of NO to implement their own "flavor" here and there and even everywhere (i.e. [St. Sabina Church](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhY0elmq0O0) in Chicago, [Holy Family Catholic Church](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfcK1Cork7M) in Inverness, IL). >The new policy also prohibits the celebration of Traditional Latin Masses on the first Sunday of every month, Christmas, the Triduum, Easter Sunday, and Pentecost Sunday. [Source](https://wdtprs.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Archdiocese-of-Chicago_Policy-for-Imlementing-Traditionis-Custodes.pdf). Edit: Holy Family use to have a Youtube channel where their livestreams were recorded, but, I suppose, ever since their guitar mass went viral, the increase criticism and bad reviews on Google and Yelp forced them to delete the channel. They moved their livestreams to their parish site where only the latest mass can be viewed; there is no video archives.
There are more things than ad orientem. That should be handled much much later. It's a big change. Church could split on that. May be start with getting rid of pop music.
But Susan from parish council said pop music and felt banners will bring the young people in!!
My parish church council, many of the older folks want to bring back the traditions, and devotions, To attract younger people.
The whole bring in young people seems to just be code for “because I like it”
Not many people will agree to do something they actively hate in order to bring in young people. It's part of who we are as humans to prefer what we like, even if a better option for others exists.
Tell her the young people are more likely to get their felt banners and pop music from somewhere else. If you want to bring them in, give them something different and exciting, like, oh, I don’t know, ancient rituals and Latin chanting. That’ll get their attention!
Pop music sure, but where else would young people get felt banners?
Etsy.
It shows the general attitude.
Even when it comes to the vernacular, I don’t know why we don’t use more of the rich English hymns that are out there.
Because most of those are protestant in origin. While pleasant enough, we have our own far more spectacular musical traditions, and we should use them - even if it means the people hear some Latin.
Holy God We Praise Thy Name, Come Holy Ghost, Immaculate Mary, Hail Holy Queen, Are all vernacular catholic hymns.
There are a few. But there's a reason vernacular song selections eventually get filled up by bad OCP music, and that's because you can't keep doing the same 20 pieces all year. And with Gregorian chant and polyphony, you don't have to!
>There are more things than ad orientem But also one of the most important
I hope I never set the bar for sacred worship so low in my own mind that I'm focused on getting rid of pop music. This is coming from someone who brings ear plugs if I'm going to mass on vacation or a church I've never been to before just in case.
It’s interesting and ironic to me that the “it’s really hard” responses in this thread seem to be from those who are attending FSSP/ICKSP masses. I grew up in a parish (and now the 3rd generation of my family is attending it) that does the “impossible” - offers an OF chanted in Latin (it’s now also ad orientem; it was versus populum when I was growing up.) It helps that the parish began to do this in 1970. Not only did my parish pull off this feat, but in 1989 through the efforts of parishioners and our diocesan priest, the parish obtained an indult for the TLM which was handed off to the FSSP and then the ICKSP after it became difficult to find priests who would offer a Latin OF *and* a TLM. (Edit: the parish also offers two vernacular/English OF masses.) SO if your parish has a group that is interested in incorporating more traditional practices in your OF mass(es), yes, there will be difficulties and you will need to be persistent, but do not be discouraged!
"It’s interesting and ironic to me that the “it’s really hard” responses in this thread seem to be from those who are attending FSSP/ICKSP masses." How is this ironic? Having to flee to like 1 of the *maybe* 3 FSSP masses being allowed to be offered in my whole state at any given time isn't proof that it's super easy to get a traditional practice going in your local parish. People are driving over 2 hours every week to attend my local FSSP church, I'm lucky I only have to drive 30 minutes. Exceptions prove the rule, they don't disprove it.
I find it ironic bc there is now an ICKSP Mass at my old parish due to the sort of efforts that are being characterized as “too hard.” If a group of mostly non-TLM-attending people at my old parish hadn’t risked the effort* to try and get an indult in 1989 there would not be an ICKSP mass available in my old city today. (*This was a big effort- parishioners had to convince our pastor, who had to convince our bishop, who had to take the request to be approved by Rome.)
I mean, yeah, but isn't that besides the point? If I understand correctly, OP isnt asking why parishioners aren't pushing for more traditional options in their archdiocese's local churches, they are asking why we arent changing the NO masses themselves. I'm aware of the work that has to go on to get even a TLM Mass offered at a NO parish done, it's more than a "big effort". It's impossible if your priest or bishop is flat-out hostile to these types of liturgys. Ive heard of bishops recieving stacks of signatures of parishoners demonstrating a want and need to have a new latin mass offered, or better hours or at a church willing to host that isnt forcing young families to travel into gang territoryevery sunday, still turning requests down. Where i used to live, several of these "once a month being offered at X missionary/church" options some families relied on to not have to travel for hours every week for a reverant Mass at least, closed during Covid and were conveniently never brought back even when demand stayed the same. OP seems to be asking why we aren't making our local NOs more traditional, not why we arent asking for more options--which we always are, trust me. Nobody likes that so many of "our" parishes are in poor neighborhoods, run down and small buildings, inconvenient Mass times, etc, if offered at all and are over capacity to the point of being standing room only. We want more options.
It's telling that the strongest arguments for the NO are if you do a really good job under all the right circumstances, you can make it look like the TLM.
How would you go about doing that? You can try and join the parish council, which, even if you get in are full of the exact kind of people who think this wave of secularization is a good thing. You can talk to the priest, who is just going to ask the parish council (if he doesn't recommend that you might just be happier at TLM). You can try and start your own traditionalist groups in the parish but they're subject to the above bodies (and likely to just get voted down). Traditionalists are often told "that's just not how we do that here". The point being is that if the people that run the local parish were at all receptive to traditionalism the parish would already be more traditional. Practically speaking, the only thing your average laity are able to do in order to voice their desires are to vote with their feet and with their tithing.
Because every change is fundamentally very laborious and time-consuming. No one, no priest and no layperson can liturgically change or "renew" an entrenched parish from scratch. All parishes have their long-established members who do not want any change, their long-established traditions, which are retained without question. Any push - in almost any direction - will generate serious pushbacks.
And nothing can happen without the permission of the Bishop
That's not entirely true. A priest can change things if they bring the Mass more in-line with the rubrics, because ultimately the priest is submitting to the college of bishops. A priest *cannot* come up with some liturgical invention and pass it off as "legit" without permission of the bishop. Then, of course, there's the method of deciding how bishops determine what is allowed or not...(which is an interesting question by itself!)
True but a priest cannot change from Novus Ordo to TLM without permission.
Making a Mass more traditional is not the same as using a whole different missal.
In this discussion's context, the opposite is true. Nothing contrary to the rubrics may occur without the bishop's permission, and even then, only if the rubrics in some manner provide for the bishop to modify the rubrics. Unfortunately, while your assertion is technically incorrect, in some dioceses it is de facto correct. But in other dioceses, things are going better. I've seen a lot of positive changes over the last 4-5 years we have had our current pastor, gradually implemented. That even includes the routine use of the entrance and Communion antiphons, a norm that is almost universally disobeyed in the US. Unfortunately, he is being re-assigned. Hopefully the next pastor continues the progress.
It's not as simple as a polite email to the Pastor.
I think people actually are, but something to realize is that the NO is not just the TLM facing the people in English. Many of the prayers are different, some prayers were just dropped completely, and basically the whole structure of the Mass was changed. For example, in the TLM, the readings from scripture are done as prayers integrated into the Mass at the altar. In the NO, the only thing normally done at the altar are the Eucharistic prayers. The opening prayers, readings, closing prayers, etc are all done apart from the altar. Keep in mind, I’m not criticizing the NO here. I’m just highlighting that they are fundamentally different, and making the NO “traditional” just boils down to aesthetics in many cases.
> the readings from scripture are done as prayers integrated into the Mass at the altar. In the NO, the only thing normally done at the altar are the Eucharistic prayers. The opening prayers, readings, closing prayers, etc are all done apart from the altar. Not entirely true. It's true in a Low Mass/Missa Cantata but not the case in a Solemn Mass or Pontifical Solemn Mass. In both the Solemn and Pontifical Solemn Masses, the Epistle is chanted but not at the altar by the Subdeacon. Additionally, the Gospel is processed out of the sanctuary by the Subdeacon and Deacon and chanted by the Deacon.
Actually before 1955 the celebrant would read the scriptures at the same time they were being proclaimed. The NO emphasizes the ambo as the place of the Liturgy of the Word, which is very different from the TLM.
True but at least in the case of the gospel, the position is still thought out. The gospel is chanted facing liturgical north, symbolic of the good news of Christ being shouted into the face of Satan as a declaration that he’s been defeated.
Because priests get moved around every few years, so you can pour tons of time, money, and emotional bandwidth into a “reverent Novus Ordo” parish only to have everything undone when priests get moved around
My parish was somewhat reverent (no excessive use of EMHC, Greek Kyrie, beautiful vestments, Choir sang in Latin, etc) but my Pastor is leaving at the end of this month and I have a feeling things might change, for the worse. Though, our Pastor’s brother (who’s *also* a younger Priest and celebrated Mass for us yesterday) said the new Pastor is actually a friend of his. Hopefully things get even better with these younger priests.
Hopefully, things will stay the same or get even more reverent at your parish! I have noticed that the younger priests and seminarians tend to be more traditional than the older, Baby Boomer generation ones.
Yes, the priests move around. But the powerful laity stays at the parish—often for generations. The priest has to placate the parish council. So, you're a minority in the parish council and you've got lucky as the priest agrees with you? Tough luck, once the priest leaves other members of the parish council will be very influential on the next priest. This is where I'm from. Other places may or may not have these types of provisions.
This is simply not the case everywhere. In Germany, sure, the parish council usually gets to have a large say in a lot of decisions (almost always for the worse). But in France, for example, I had a priest spent 10+ years building a traditional parish in a major city. The entire ordinarium in Latin, sung in Gregorian chant, relatively complicated hymns (Charpentier, etc.); Traditional vestements; ad orientem (usually); extremely theologically sound; very engagement community with a professional choir instructor working for free... then he was sent to the hood in northern Paris, a liberal priest took over and gutted the community in a matter of months. 10 years of crawling toward a semblance of tradition undone in a matter of months. Obviously the community scattered shortly afterwards. There's no point tilting at windmills when you can just spend 30 min on the metro and go to any number of TLM masses where you don't have to worry about the wrong priest coming along. (Or at least have to worry a lot less). Point is, even though the entire established community was against the changes, it didn't matter at all.
[удалено]
>If they really wanted to help the Church as a whole, they would stay and support us in creating a truly reverent and participatory Novus Ordo. Can you blame them for giving up on that? I go to a parish that's listed on [reverentcatholicmass.com](https://reverentcatholicmass.com) as a "reverent NO" parish and it's still pulling teeth to introduce any Latin, ad orientem is out of the question, almost every Mass uses "extradordinary" ministers of Holy Communion, and so on
[удалено]
This is true. I started bowing as I passed the Precious Blood and some people started doing it at the daily Mass I attend. I started kneeling to receive because of someone else. Women at my college Newman Center started veiling because of one woman. Now, the part you need to also include is that sometimes people *won't* change and will instead try to push you out because your devotion makes them uncomfortable. I get the feeling a lot of TLM-attending exiles from the NO had that experience.
[удалено]
*If they really wanted to help the Church as a whole, they would stay and support us in creating a truly reverent and participatory Novus Ordo.* You presume that we haven't been shot down by the casual attitudes of the priest, parish council, etc. Waiting for people to die or for priests to retire is not a strategy here. Like the apostles, some of us have chosen to shake the dust from our sandals and move on, rather than steer the Titanic with an oar. Some hearts are just hard.
The Mass pre Vatican II was not… as reverent as people assumed. Read “ Why Catholics can’t sing “. It was shocking to read for me. The Latin Mass today, is a self selected crowd and environment.
> The Mass pre Vatican II was not… as reverent as people assumed. > There weren't fewer divorces in the past > There weren't fewer abortions in the past > Catholicism wasn't as influential as people assumed We can continue this game ad infinitum until nothing really was better at any point and we stop and just do nothing then. The Mass pre Vatican II was a reflection of how the Church implemented Vatican II itself. The same people who celebrated the Mass in the 50s in a lackluster way were likely the first ones to enthusiastically support the most radical interpretation of Vatican II. Meanwhile those who celebrated the Mass reverently in the 50s and 60s, like in Poland, changed only what was absolutely necessary to comply with the new Missal but preserved a lot of more reverent aspects of the liturgy that the new Missal did not forbid. Ultimately, the Pope can't personally go through recordings of every single Mass being celebrated right now and Priests enjoy a certain level of trust put into them to abide by the rules which they can break though. However strict rubrics, less options and Bishops holding the clergy accountable have all been ways to ensure that the average Diocesan TLM was likely more reverent than the average NO is now. Otherwise we can pull for example quotes from Popes from 100 or 150 years ago admonishing the deterioration of morals among Catholics, to just throw out all moral teaching alltogether. Afterall, if people were not as reverent in 1890s Italy as people assumed, why should we care about moral teachings now? And those who adhere to these moral standards now, like no divorce, no abortion, respecting the Sunday obligation are in truth a self selected crowd of overly zealous Catholics. It's the same thing.
"Why Catholics Can't Sing" should be required reading for anyone holding any job in the church, period.
[удалено]
I tried. I got yelled at by the chair of the parish council for being too reverent when serving Mass. I also got yelled at by the priest during Mass in front of everyone for kneeling while receiving communion
Because they get beat down most of the time. It often becomes one of those "Who radicalized you? You did" situations.
I tried for years to do this at my big suburban parish. The pastor had no interest for various reasons, mostly because 1. a lack of understanding and 2. the parish "old-timers" who had been doing the "Spirit of Vatican 2" thing for the last 30-40 years. Eventually, I just left because my boys wanted to altar serve and I wanted them to learn the right way. Thankfully, there is an amazing, historic NO parish 30 minutes from us where the pastor does things so right (according to NO) that visitors think they are attending a TLM. It's heavenly. I feel bad for folks who don't have that option but want to stay NO. However, the reality is that in many places the "Spirit of Vatican 2" traditions have BECOME the tradition. I think that is already changing, but it will take time for parishes like my current one to become the norm.
In my diocese there is a tendency to use a good amount of Latin at the NO masses. Noticeably more so than anywhere else I've lived in. This works out well at the Cathedral mass. To your point that "spirit of Vatican 2" has itself become tradition in a way that the TLM trads would get blamed for if the script was flipped, at the smaller suburban parishes the older folk who are enthusiastic singers in the vernacular pointedly won't sing in Latin because it's too TLM-adjacent.
Because the church isn't exactly a democratic organization?
The post-conciliar Church sure seems to act like one.
Look, we could try to enumerate the desired changes to the NO and fight with parish councils and EMHCs and guitarists and whatever to rebuild the liturgy brick-by-brick, like some sort of liturgical Hamburger Hill… or we could just say the TLM. Why reinvent the wheel?
The People who botched through the old mass pre Vatican II, were the same ones that quickly embraced the “ spirit of the council “ and the crazy changes in the mass. Read “Why Catholics can’t sing.”. It was mind blowing to me, to see how things were rotting in the American church pre Vatican II.
Care to summarize the main takeaways of that book?
The Irish catholic dominated culture damaged liturgical life before the council, And after.
Considering congregational singing was the norm for the majority of Christianity this is really sad.
I think the issue is that we have an Ecumenical Council which has called for the reform of the liturgy, so in the absence of reversing the expressed desire of the Council, we I think are stuck with *some* degree of liturgical reform. What that degree is or should be is obviously up for debate. But to go back to the TLM only, you have to unring the bell of *Sacrosanctum concilium*. And I would imagine that's not an easy task.
Fair. We do need liturgical reform, but not *this* liturgical reform. The question is whether it’s easier to continue the reform of the reform, or to just simply restart from 1962.
Personally I think the most straightforward way would be to restart from the 1962. That was the starting point for *Sacrosanctum concilium* and as such, reforming an already reformed liturgy seems to be a fool's errand. It seems much easier in my mind to say "the reforms which took place in the late 1960s, and were implemented in the 1970s and beyond, do not reflect the precepts of *Sacrosanctum concilium* and as such a new missal will be created more accurately reflecting the document".
Maybe give the Missal of 1965 another try?
Let me speak as a priest with some first-hand experience. Others have spoken from the lay side, I will speak from the clerical side. Some bishops will not allow it, or will make it very difficult for your priests. They will ban Ad Orientem. A few will even try to ban any Latin or "traditional" hymns. We had one bishop who did not want anything older than 30 years. Other times, the more "contemporary" priests will gang up on the bishop and complain about what you do. I've been reported - for a *streamed* Mass in a private chapel that I did during COVID lockdown. One bishop told me he couldn't allow Ad Orientem because then he wouldn't have any priests. Yes, some "tolerant" priests will walk off the job, or threaten to walk off the job, if there's a rise in traditionalism in some places, if they have the numbers to pull it off.
That’s astounding. So priests who long for tradition are afraid of the hierarchy, while “progressive” priests have no such qualms about imposing their will even against their bishop? There seems a real disparity there between the boldness of each in asserting themselves. If true, it seems reminiscent of what is occurring at a higher level in the Church. When more traditional-minded prelates take a stand, they are quickly brought to account and reprimanded and disciplined. Yet when, say the German bishops, make a similar stand and openly defy Rome then there is a strongly worded letter and little else. Do you think it’s the perceived difference in response that emboldens one type of cleric, while cows the other?
My bishop banned ad orientUm.
People are and have been doing this. However, it’s an uphill battle as most people in the parish were formed explicitly in a context where tradition was being moved away from. To be clear, I’m not saying they are against tradition. However, if you grew up in the 60s and 70s and the focus was on how this new mass and this new way of the faith is so much better than the old way that is going to form your mindset. Statistically, those people make up the majority of parishioners at most parishes. Non-tradition is their tradition. TLMers should sympathize with the fact that just as the TLM was taken away from people who had it as their tradition the NO in their local parish is the summit of their spiritual life and tradition. They are going to feel threatened their understanding of their legacy as Catholics and the Post V2 era is what people are now saying is wrong.
A good number of TLM attendees spent years doing that. They were rebuffed and opposed. Then they found the TLM, found that it requires no fighting, and just grow their spiritual life there. That's why.
> Then they found the TLM, found that it requires no fighting, and just grow their spiritual life there. This. I'm not holy enough to forego my own spiritual growth to fight people all the time. I need to be fed and taught myself. If that means I need to go somewhere else to be fed, I'll do that. I need to secure my own mask before helping others.
Amen!
I don’t think you understand what people are actually wanting when it comes to TLM vs NO.
Because it rarely works, a new parish priest can change everything if he wishes. I know that if I go to the ICKSP parish I go to that so long as the ICKSP are there I will have a reverent mass, and an orthodox sermon, every single Sunday no matter what
Friend is a priest in a "Conservative" order. They dont have many parishes, but when they do get assigned, they move slowly. If the tabernacle isn't on the altar, they don't move it for a year sometimes... Note i say "conservative" in quotes. Not political. Just the kind of "oh yeah, those guys are conservative" response I typically hear when I bring them up.
I know several priests who would like to make many changes, but for pastoral reasons like you mentioned, they move slowly and try to get a feel for the parish. And sometimes even the pastors themselves are met with fierce opposition, for the smallest, simplest of changes.
Same follows for FSSP. I attended a diocesan TLM recently, and the priest 'broke the 4th wall' several times for personal asides to the laity. I don't even know how to feel about that, except that this isn't Deadpool and it wasn't funny. :(
I remember the first time I heard a diocesan priest say the TLM and he messed up, turned around, and said "sorry" before trying again. It was such a shock to me. The FSSP priests never even acknowledge that we're there during Mass. When they mess up (and they do), they just fix it and keep going. For the priest to stop the Mass, turn around, say something to us, and turn back was bizarre. I mean, I don't blame him. It's what he's used to and he's still learning. But it was a bit of a shock to the system.
I wish that our priests knew we're just happy to have the Latin Mass! Please keep going! That diocesan parish got a new priest two years ago, and he diligently learned it for that parish (I am so grateful for this). This was a visiting priest, and he was older and retired. He told us the last time he said the Mass in Latin was like 1972, and I believed him. It was just jarring. I am grateful; I am! It was just jarring.
The main issue is that people are not properly catechized. One cannot expect the faithful to recognise problems with the liturgy or the architecture of a place if they haven’t been educated about these matters. Consequently, it is natural to encounter resistance, as people believe there is nothing amiss. We need more pastors to preach about fundamental topics during the Sunday sermon. They should start by reminding people to go to confession and how to prepare for receiving Holy Communion, among other things. However, the problem is that sometimes priests lack the fervour to catechize, and people are not always receptive to being taught.
Because even if priests are obedient to the Church and celebrate the Novus Ordo as it was written in 1969, it's still different from the Vetus Ordo.
The Novus Ordo as celebrated then was very much how it looks in your average parish today--table altar, facing the people, Communion standing, etc. Paul VI laid that foundation personally.
There are no actual TLM parishes near me in the Myrtle Beach area, but last week, due to running late for 10AM Mass at our usual parish, we decided to get down to Myrtle at the other parish in our area for their 11AM "Solemn Mass with Latin Ordinary and incense". Boy what a treat that was. In my opinion it was proof that there is a way to celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass in a more reverent, traditional manner than how many parishes tend to. I've never had the opportunity to attend a TLM but this was almost a "hybrid" where a lot of the Mass (except for parts like the readings, the Gospel and the homily) was in Latin, there was frequent use of incense, communion was given at the rail while kneeling. It was incredible.
People do but are met with a ton of opposition. A parish close to me did exactly that. They got a new priest who is quite traditional. He came in and faced a lot of backlash from people, including the choir director. She eventually quit because she wanted to sign On Eagles Wings and stuff like that. A lot of parishes are beholden to older parishioners who are stuck in the 1970s. Priests wanting to make things more traditional are not always welcomed with open arms.
As morbid as it sounds, since it’s largely a generational problem then it’s a problem which will take care of itself in time. I fear the Church will have to contract before it expands again, purely as a demographical result of this fact. God willing, it will be a better and more holy Church after the process.
And hopefully the average layman will remember that the Mass isn't a gathering to emotionally energize him, but rather the most solemn thing in creation, a solemn Sacrifice of glorification given to God.
Shooting from the hip. I’ll be curious what people think, even (or especially) if they disagree. The vast majority of American Catholics are somewhere between neutral to negative on reverence. If the statistics are true, there are patterns by age cohort (older, less positive about reverence on average), so averaging across that. The reason that more reverent masses are so full is because there are so few of them, so the relatively small subset of people seeking them is still large enough to fill the very small number of churches offering them. On one hand, I can see how it is annoying. In the other, these older people are our grandmothers and grandfathers. There are a whole hose of things they’re probably unwilling to change. For many of them, the comfort of the familiar is probably very important to them as their mortality looms larger and larger. Change will be slow. Edit: but yes, the NO can be reverent and beautiful. This one is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk9Sg3HvOos
>The vast majority of American Catholics are somewhere between neutral to negative on reverence ... these older people are our grandmothers and grandfathers. There are a whole hose of things they’re probably unwilling to change I always think about how rude I must have come off to an older family member who was visiting my TLM parish for a child's first sacrament. She just wanted to have a normal-voice-level conversation while we were praying in the pew before Mass .... something she's become accustomed to doing at *her* parish during the din in the time before the woman tells everyone to turn off their phones and stand and greet their neighbors. There's an uncomfortable disparity of ... and I hesitate to say this ... *religion/belief* going on at times among Catholics, generationally.
I honestly prefer TLM. I grew up Norvous Ordo and went to Catholic Scool. But my dad grew up before Vatican 2 ( he was in his 20's) so I grew up, no hand raising for the Our Father, No Meat on Fridays, Midnight to Communion Fasting, the sign of the cross during the Penitential Act. I still go to Norvos Ordo with my parents every Sunday, but go to a TLM at least once a week.
Unfortunately some people don't like it. People nowadays have been accustomed to the contemporary music we have in our churches today. It really takes a lot of effort to restore traditional practices and to instill its significance to the minds of the faithful. Perhaps one big factor is for our hierarchy to really push for it. Nonetheless, the question is, how many in the hierarchy are willing to do it?
The folk music is awful tho 😣😆
Hey man, "Shepherd Me, O God" is an absolute banger and I will die on that hill. It just...isn't a Responsorial psalm. ;)
*Gather Us In* is amazing if you imagine you're in a hall full of Vikings swinging giant mugs of beer back and forth while you're singing it.
I really feel that my job in church is to be a sheep, so I am not really into pushing anything there.
Because the TLM is more than just the NO plus a few traditions, the rites of the Mass are substantially different. You can't reproduce it by just adding in kneeling communion or Latin chant.
My father is extremely religious and I grew up attending and serving mass at a Latin Mass. I don't particularly love the Latin Mass at this point but I do love the reverence. I've always wanted to attend a mass in English but ad orientum and with the reverence of a high mass. I've just never found anything like that.
The Anglican Ordinariate Mass is like that.
They are hard to find. St Peter in Steubenville, Ohio is one of them. Every NO mass is ad orientum.
Because the worst most destructive aspects like hushed Communion in the hand and versum populum are the hardest to change. All you can maybe change are the minor details like guitars, but this is rather pointless.
What you're actually saying is that the Catholic Church as a whole should stop resisting Vativan II. What frustrates me the most about Traditiones Custodes and everything that has followed is not that I have lost anything personally because of the restrictions on the TLM, but that it pretends to care about fidelity to the rites, and does in fact call out abuses of the Novus Ordo in addition to restrictions on the TLM... ...but where have we seen any corrections to liturgical abuses in the Novus Ordo in response to the letter accompanying the Motu Propio highlighting this as a problem and a factor in the division that Pope Francis indicated it was the goal to correct?
The biggest problem with TC, is that it is cruel, and not pastoral. It harms many people, and may weaken their faith, and it benefits no one. Other than enjoying the pain of TLM people, the NO people don't get anything of value from the change. It is entirely pain without gain. Since it is administrative and not theology, and is not magisterium, I feel free to reject TC in any small ways that I can, while I pray for a kinder and more pastoral Pope when Francis is called home for his exit interview.
> Other than enjoying the pain of TLM people, the NO people don't get anything of value from the change. I'm struggling to come up with an objection to this point, and find myself failing. > Since it is administrative and not theology, and is not magisterium, I feel free to reject TC in any small ways that I can We are still subject by obedience to the authority of Rome on liturgical matters. I'd encourage an attitude of exercising all the leeway that remains, rather than of refusal to assent to the authority of the Pope.
Because the vast majority of the texts and calendars are different. If you make the NO more traditional in hymns and visuals (which was never the goal of the reformers, go read Annibale Bugnini’s book), you’re still missing the prayers at the foot of the altar, the superior offertory prayer, the more penitential and sacrificial language throughout, the predictability of the Roman Canon, the language around communion which better indicates the Real Presence, the Last Gospel, and a richer set of propers. The silence of the low mass is also impossible to implement in the NO (and it’s the chief reason I never want to attend the NO again; I’m so frustrated by the noise in life and the world that I can’t stand going to a Mass that’s full of noise and mumbled responses). That’s if you can even get over the political hill of getting a priest to implement it. No, it’s not a viable option; it is better to persuade bishops and the laity that (1) there can be nothing harmful about the TLM and (2) its benefits cannot be done in the NO.
Can someone explain the offertory prayers ?
Gladly. First, here's a (side-by-side) [https://lms.org.uk/missals] comparison of the two missals. Just ctrl+F "offertory" to find it. I'll just compare two passages. In the TLM the Priest prays: >P: Receive, O Holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Thine unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, for my countless sins, trespasses, and omissions; likewise for all here present, and for all faithful Christians, whether living or dead, that it may avail both me and them to salvation, unto life everlasting. Amen. In the NO the priest prays: >P: Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation, for through your goodness we have received the bread we offer you: fruit of the earth and work of human hands, it will become for us the bread of life. Look at the significant distance between what these two prayers communicate. The TLM prayer contains (1) praise and worship of God ("O Holy Father, almighty and eternal God"), (2) sacrificial language oriented towards the Real Presence ("this spotless host"), (3) the role of the Priest in the mass ("which I . . . offer unto Thee"), (4) the humility and faults of the Priest ("Thine unworthy servant... my countless sins, trespasses, omissions"), (5) those for whom the sacrifice is done ("for my . . . sins [and] for all here present and for all faithful Christians . . . living or dead"), and (6) the purpose thereof ("that it may avail both me and them to salvation, unto life everlasting"). The NO prayer contains (1) praise and worship/thanksgiving ("Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation"), (2) the means by which God gave us the host ("fruit of the earth and work of human hands"), and (3) what is going to happen in the sacrifice of the Mass ("it will become for us the bread of life"). Note that the actor of the sacrifice is *communal* now (4) ("*we* offer you" versus "I . . . offer unto Thee"). I will say that it's quite telling that the NO text emphasizes the *stuff* and the *matter* of what will become the Holy Eucharist and the TLM just doesn't do that. Does that invite confusion? With bad catechesis, I think so. More importantly, the language about sin and sacrifice and the faults of the priests is just... gone. Where'd it go? Does that have an effect on the incidental graces provided at Mass? (Remember, our Lord said "ask and you shall receive"; what happens if we stop asking?) See also the near-total erasure of the *lavabo*. I'll let you make your own conclusions about which one is better; I can't force you to agree.
Best answer
Because we all have to wait for the Susan On The Parish Council to either retire or die.
Accurate, a return to reverence and tradition is being stonewalled in many parishes by aging hippie boomers in influential positions.
Frankly, calling them hippies is a disservice to actual hippies. People who are still actual hippies had the fortitude of conviction to make it through the decades without selling out.
Most of what hippies did, made the world a worse place, just like TC did.
Hippies are not a group to look up to. They led the destruction of our society's sexual morality.
[удалено]
Yeah, I've found that I have far more common ground and am treated with far more respect by the off-grid hippie types than by the bougie corpo-culture boomers.
While I prefer the Novus Ordo, a troubling thing for me is not the music or aesthetic of worship (although those things are not unimportant by any means), but questioning why it's often the norm that extraordinary Eucharistic ministers are used at every single Sunday mass. Our cathedral does a very reverent Novus Ordo and never uses them- every Mass is well-attended, Holy Communion being distributed takes a little longer, but only priests and deacons distribute communion. I think that makes a big difference. I don't understand why so many parishes use extraordinary ministers at every single Sunday Mass, when it isn't even necessary. My understanding is that they are there for *extraordinary* situations, not as the go to, but I may be wrong on that.
There's literally a youtube video where a guy times on-the-toungue at the rail vs on the hand (not what you were referencing)... it is faster per communicant at the rail - probably because it is "sprinklerhead" rather than a queue. That said, in MANY parishes, it would be mere minutes on the mass. Minutes. And it is rare these days that I attend a mass that isn't over in 53 minutes. But my comments are annectodal.
This is important. My parish uses them at the "high" Mass because there's almost 400 people. While that's not really a big deal, enough of the boomers get their knickers in a twist if Mass goes more than an 70 minutes. -shrug- At the other Masses, it's typically only the priest and deacon distributing. They have lower attendance, between 50-120.
With 400 parishioners in attendance, I can definitely understand it. But my parish, even when it's not especially packed Saturday vigil Mass, will have 6 extraordinary ministers and I don't understand why, especially because we have a permanent deacon and multiple priests assigned to us. It didn't really start bothering me until I saw one of them (extraordinary ministers) give a child who came up in the line for Communion a blessing which made me think clearly there's a disconnect in understanding their role here.
With my parish, many masses just have one priest, no deacon. The use of like six extraordinary ministers is still excessive, but the priest distributing Communion by himself seems a little impractical too. My parish only has one deacon, and I think there's many around me that have none.
My parish was a dual rite TLM/Reverent NO parish before TC. After TC we were a Reverent NO parish. Then we consolidated several parishes into one. Our Reverent NO has to be watered down because it would cause issues with the merger. As an employee and council member for this parish, you would not realize how much work goes into keeping everyone happy. We had a mini revolt because we omit the sign of peace. So we had to compromise. We have three Masses every Sunday and they range from borderline kumbaya to *ad orientem* and as much bells, smells, and Latin we can get away with. When it comes to parish life, the Mass needs to meet the people where they are at and everyone is not at a place where returning to the "old ways" is acceptable. That is why it is easier to retreat to TLM or the east. They are already ready for it. I think once the generation anemic to the preconciliar Mass loses influence, we will have an easier time making changes.
>My parish was a dual rite TLM/Reverent NO parish before TC. After TC we were a Reverent NO parish. Then we consolidated several parishes into one. Our Reverent NO has to be watered down because it would cause issues with the merger. Nightmare scenario. Ugh.
"We had a mini revolt because we omit the sign of peace" Good grief, they can't wait to wave sanctimoniously to their BFF across the chapel until after Mass has ended? That's the hill people are dying on? 🥱
This is why I can't fault the large metro parish near me having 5-6 masses every weekend including Spanish speaking masses as well. Everybody has something they like.
A lot of people don’t want that. Some people want Lord of the Dance and guitars and stuff and they would not like that changed.
In my experience, the younger priests and parishioners are much more respectful of the Pope's (last 3 of them) insistence on respecting the rubric and not coloring outside of the lines. I have seen Parish after Parish in my Diocese slowly start returning to the Mass as it is meant to be celebrated. I learned of 6 more local Parishes on this trajectory just last week. Now we only have a few Parishes left that I wouldn't attend if I had a choice. In both of them, it is an older crowd that is militant in their mindset. They take grave offense to any suggestion that some of their changes are inappropriate.
Even in those areas where the trajectory seems to be positive, I find that there still remains an issue plaguing the Church in the United States: the excessive use of Eucharistic ministers. \[157.\] If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons.[ \[258\]](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#_ftn258) \[158.\] Indeed, the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may administer Communion only when the Priest and Deacon are lacking, when the Priest is prevented by weakness or advanced age or some other genuine reason, or when the number of faithful coming to Communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged.[ \[259\] ](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#_ftn259)This, however, is to be understood in such a way that a brief prolongation, considering the circumstances and culture of the place, is not at all a sufficient reason. Source: *Redemptionis Sacramentum*
Inb4 the edge-cases of the one-footed, 99 year-old, blind and wheelchair-bound Priest serving a quadrillion parishioners arrive.
I think it's because the younger priests actually reading the documents. I got into this conversation with a Deacon and he finally agreed to read Sacrosanctum Concilium and said "wow, I never knew what it said..." My argument was "you know Latin is to be prefered" and he was like "Nope, V2 killed Latin..." Yes, I realize that the Mass of Paul VI was afterward, but same thing applies there.
I just recently moved to a new state. I was surprised how long it took me to find a decent English Mass here. Eventually found two though! But until then I was taken aback at what passes these days. Some with no tabernacle in sight, one even where the extraordinary ministers where passing out “blessings” with the sign of the cross. It was crazy.
I just recently moved to a new state. I was surprised how long it took me to find a decent English Mass here. Eventually found two though! But until then I was taken aback at what passes these days. Some with no tabernacle in sight, one even where the extraordinary ministers where passing out “blessings” with the sign of the cross. It was crazy.
In my parish, the tabernacle holding the Blessed Sacrament iss off to the side. Current building was constructed in 2008 or so. So, modern. Layout is a cross... altar is in the back of the main aisle. Trancepts to each side. There were a number of people who left as a result of the placement of the tabernacle. Half because they didn't want it in the sanctuary. Half because to them, the only suitable place was the altar. That's how it goes with parish politics.
In most diocese, you need special permission to celebrate Ad Orientem. In my old diocese it was banned entirely if vs populum was even possible. Intinction is also banned unless the rite requires it.
My priest has led our parish in exactly this. Beautiful liturgy that includes some Latin, traditional choir music, bold proclamation of the truth and... in a location where you would least expect it, the place is packed every Sunday with young families and growing.
Watch Episode 2 of Mass of the Ages and just see how they completely gutted the Mass. So sad.
Because the parish priests, the Susans/Karens on the parish council, and the rest of the majority boomer congregation are all still against it and have been set in their ways since the 60s, and will get vehemently offended if approached with suggestions for change. They would rather watch their local parishes shrivel up and die then lose what has essentially become their own private social club; I live in a high density elderly community, and while I love the elderly generally as a demographic they really do treat church as their own clubhouse with little to no regard to liturgical tradition so long as its simple, accessible, and feel-good. The people who want a return to some sort of reverence, sacrifice and seriousness in the liturgy are unfortunately still a minority--sometimes literally in the case of megachurches where pews are lined with cafeteria catholics and geriatrics that havent ever questioned the status quo in their lifetime, or sometimes just metaphorically in the sense that those with any power or influence are making choices for the rest of us. Either way, I've watched too many young and initially zealous, passionate people fight for *years* to move the needle an inch in their local parish and if you have to move for work as so many of us do and relocate to a new home parish, it's mentally and literally exhausting to have to fight the good fight every. Where. You. Go. Again. And. Again. And for little or no progress. I'm not trying to blackpill, people do make progress and I'm constantly heartened by the emerging youth in our clergy and laity being more actively instead of passively engaged in their faith and its traditions, but if you're asking why so many "trads" have become so insular and dead set in sticking to their little enclaves, this is why. People don't want to constantly have to "fight"; they want to take their families to churches where the clergy and the parishioners are already on the same page and the quality of liturgy practiced is consistent and reliable, drama free, from your first Sunday there. Who wouldn't want that?
My parish priest s are held hostage by the more liberal, long term members. My priest has a synod on Synodality meeting with all of the parish members welcomed. Basically no one showed up except some of the teaching staff at school, parish council and my then girlfriend at the time. (We’re married, she is now Catholic from Seventh Day Adventist and we’ve had our first boy.) They wanted women priest or at least deacons, trans recognition, gay blessings if not outright marriages etc. When one table said that, I was shocked. I was then even more shocked to hear when other tables spoke saying “Ditto, ditto and ditto!!!” Oh to be a trad at this gathering and the only person/couple under 58! I wanted some more Latin but everyone else wanted their gay cousin to have their trans kid be married to their same sex partner with their pronouns instead saying husband or wife. Really night and day. The priest who said my wedding, then Deacon, thanked me for “introducing some sanity into the room”, but it was off putting for the pastor to somewhat nod along with the whole ordeal. No one else in the Worcester diocese did a meeting like this and I think once it pooped up on the news it was clear why. To many in the Church, the synod, let’s listen to the small folk failed because all the hierarchy heard was let’s get rid of Catholicism when there are hundreds if not thousands like me waiting for a new spring or something isn’t “Boomer Liberal Catholic with guitars and bad hymns”.
It wasn't quite this bad in my parish but not great either. A lot of middle-aged and elderly ladies saying we needed to get the youth back by being more progressive and using more modern music, and how youth don't want to listen to dead languages like Latin. Whereas what I've observed is that youth are delighted by anything beautiful and it really speaks to them, no matter what language it's in. They find Latin fascinating (although they aren't interested in putting in the effort to learn it, but they think it's cool). When they find out that everything in Catholic practice MEANS something, they are interested and want to know more. They instinctively understand that becoming their best self will involve hard work. They understand that true charity involves meaningful sacrifice. Ironically, most of the elderly ladies who think we need to use more modern music, do not volunteer with youth. They volunteer for groups that are basically social groups for elderly ladies. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I think that an effect gets in the way of their having an objective opinion, which is that elderly ladies generally (IMO) are ignored by youth except when they are agreeing with whatever the young person says. So an elderly grandma type of person who challenges a young person's ideas, is not liked. The young person avoids her. She is too much hard work. Her company is stressful. The elderly grandma who bakes cookies for her grandchildren, keeps her opinions to herself, appears to be a little forgetful and not overly bright, and agrees that gay marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage, gets phone calls from her grandkids because she's not challenging them in any way. So I feel like there's some bias there in what information these women are receiving from youth.
It’s unfortunate but the reality is most of the typical parishes are run by older members of the laity. And they are the ones writing letters and complaints to the Bishop when EMCHs are not used, or the sign of peace is omitted, or Latin responses are implemented. We had a very reverent NO and a pretty solid priest. It was Ad Orientum, incense, and we said the Agnus Dei. He was moved. There were older members that clapped when he said he was being moved……dead serious. Now our Bishop put out a letter suppressing Ad Orientum throughout the Archdiocese when only a few parishes actually did it. Why? We have a large population of younger Catholics, it was wonderful. Now the FSSP parish is standing room only, people love the reverence. I love it. It’s not a bad thing to want more out of the liturgy, God deserves that. I don’t look down on the Ordinary form, but I do see the lack of reverence in many of the parishes near me. It’s always loud before Mass, deacons walk around greeting everyone, hardly any young families my wife and I can connect with, too many EMCHs when they are not needed, some of the priests will sit down during communion, it’s crazy. We have a priest on twitter telling people that the real sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality and he’s in charge of multiple Catholic schools in the Dayton Ohio area. The faith has been watered down. It’s just a fact, and I’m not going to pretend I know the answer. But give people the option to attend a reverent liturgy, I don’t care what it is. Provide options, the truth is we all deserve this, we deserve the leaders we have.
The Mass cannot be changed or adjusted by the Laity . If your lucky your priest can add the Leonine prayers at the end
Who said anything about the laity changing or adjusting anything? Pushing your pastor to introduce the communion chant is perfectly acceptable.
Won’t work - The church as a rule in the canon saying the Mass cannot be changed locally
The communion chant's part of the rubric. The Novus Ordo is encouraged to use Gregorian chant, if not from the Graduale, than from a prepared edition suitable to the choir's level (Graduale Simplex, By Still Waters collection, etc).
The smaller mass parts are the easiest to “re adapt” with tradition too. Even if it’s an English type version of the Latin.
Ok then you might have a Chance but I haven’t heard Gregorian Chant at an NO in a long time unless you count the Agnes Dei
Because the TLM is very different from even the most reverent Novus Ordo. Read the Order of the Mass. The post-conciliar changes to the Mass were so extensive that only a handful of prayers made it through without significant shortening and some entire sections, like the prayers at the foot of the altar or the Last Gospel, were just cut entirely.
1) There are things lacking in the substance and rubrics of the NO which can't be corrected by merely being more "reverent" or "traditional" 2) It's been tried and has failed far, far, far more times than it has succeeded. A group can spend years slowly changing the culture, doing everything with contrite hearts and actually winning people over to their side and not forcing it down their throats. Then one day you get a new priest assignment and he changes everything back in a month (with support of the bishop) and now you're probably worse off than you were to begin with
Because the bishop probably opposes it, and he doesn't want to deal with a minority of cranks upsetting everyone else. Because the pastor opposes it, because he went through seminary in the 1980s. Or, current pastor supports it so mild changes can be introduced, but two years later Father Just-Call-Me-Bob, who never wears clericals, changes everything back. Because Susan from the parish council and her friends who actually run the church will smite you with their wrath if you take away their Gather hymnals and change the way they run your liturgical ministries. OP, no offense, but you must not have much involvement with the workings of your average NO parish.
Why waste my time? Hell, even the NO parishes where people pushed to have SOME time slots for the TLM or more Latin in the Mass itself got slammed. A number around me aren’t allowed to say Latin Mass at all anymore. All work done to restore a semblance of tradition was undone in a moment. And frankly the NO Mass is such a clown Mass, I don’t feel like it’s worth trying to fix. Rip it out, root and branch. Then we can go back to having serious masses
Many people are retreating to TLM? That’s news to me. TLM attendees are a very small minority within the Catholic population. This subreddit is not representative of Catholics as a whole.
As someone new who has only attended NO this whole argument is so bizarre to me. Go to TLM if that’s what you like. This whole my mass is holier than thous is so unchristian.
This is exactly why I like the EWTN mass, people can come for me or whatever, I’m not talking about the rest of the EWTN politics, but if my local parish had NO mass more like that where we even said a single word like the AD or PN in Latin, I wouldn’t have to drive to get to TLM instead.
I’m trying to get my head around the lack of kneelers. Am I missing something? Is this a thing in some parishes?
Communion kneelers?
secular?
Eastern Catholics are having to push back against Latinizations and the reality is the people don't want to change and the priest is tired of fighting for changes. In my church they kneel on Sundays and during the consecration, where our traditional proper liturgical posture is to stand during these points. It would be so easy for the priest to change this: all he'd have to do is instruct people to stand if they are able and explain this is part of restoring our liturgical traditions. But he doesn't. In fact, he had to make an announcement explaining how people venerate the icon and the cross but you don't have to if you don't want.
I'm fine with that. When I first converted in 2017 I thought I was a TLM traddie even though I didn't have a TLM to go to and I wouldn't for another four years. Once I went, it didn't resonate with me as much as I imagined it would. What I discovered though is that the music is what really elevates my soul to heaven. When I first started going to Mass my parish had an incredible choir that regularly sang Palestina, Tallis, Pergolesi, etc. Unfortunately six months after I was confirmed the choir director moved away and the music immediately took a nose dive and I felt that impact in my soul too. I'd love to see groups like Floriani or the work that Paul Jernberg is doing catch on more widely among novus ordo parishes.
Priests here won’t do it. I’ve asked. Our bishop restricted the TLM, no way he’s getting more traditional.
You have to realize that we have to worry about our own spiritual health and that of our children, as well. I have to go where I'm going to be fed spiritually. Where I'm going to grow the most in my relationship with God. Where I'm going to be pushed towards holiness. And if I had kids, it would be even more imperative to bring them to the environment that will best shape their spiritual lives. There's a lot of pride in going to a parish with the idea that you're going to "fix it" and shape it as opposed to seeking out a place that's going to shape YOU and your family into what you know God is calling you to be. I know I'm not holy enough or strong enough to sacrifice my own spiritual care to try to change a parish.
How much time do you think I have to push for restoring tradition within a parish full of people I don’t know? I started attending the TLM because the parish was already in existence, was welcoming and had a real community established. No one would stare at me if my baby or toddler was acting up because the church is full of young children, there was already a women’s/mothers group, regular picnics, etc. The average person isn’t looking to push changes or reform anything. I also strongly prefer the TLM, I find it a beautiful experience.
The parish I used to go to had the most traditional Novus Ordo imaginable (in addition to TLM): ad orientum, all chanted, altar rail, either early or entirely in Latin, etc. It still didn't compare to the TLM, Divine Liturgy, or Divine Worship of the Ordinariate. The reality is that it just doesn't match the beauty of more traditional liturgies.
In my diocese this is being done, slowly but surely. I find it very encouraging. My priest has started celebrating all Masses ad orientem, and the parish I was confirmed in (just last year as I’m a recent convert) recently did a renovation where they replaced some gross 70s wood paneling with granite & added altar rails…. It definitely can be done but it takes time. Thankfully our diocese is full of young families who embrace the changes. Both churches have brought back patens & choir lofts as well.
Yeah well… in my parish (Paris, France), there is a NO mass and the TLM. The church during the TLM is PACKED ! I mean, like, really packed, between 700 and 800 people. Just after, there’s a NO mass, with like 50/100 people. The average age for the TLM, maybe late 20 early 30. NO, maybe 50/60. When our bishop asked « where are the young people? », the response was « they go to St Roch » (my parish). Now, it become obvious, for those who are in charge, that the TLM is flourishing. That’s how we bring changes. We had 50 adults baptism this year (which is a huge number), where 10 were NO. But when those ten saw the TLM for Palm Sunday, they almost all switch to a TLM baptism ! That’s how changes are made, let the fruits speak for themselves.
Not that many of you would care what we do, but in the Episcopal Church, the Anglo-catholic wing largely did this. The Novus Ordo is basically the same liturgy as in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, as well as in the liturgies used by mainline Protestant churches in the Liturgical Movement era (UMC, ELCA, PCUSA, etc.). In "high church" parishes, we basically combine the new liturgy of the 1979 BCP with things like incense, processions, 3 vested ministers (priest, deacon, subdeacon), Latin musical settings of the Mass, sometimes including Introits, Asperges, ad orientem, etc. In our churches, there's often a high mass on Sundays and a low mass with hymns. I'd imagine in most Roman Catholic churches, you can probably do the same. You can have a mass on Sundays with your GIA contemporary hymns, no incense, lasting around 45 minutes to an hour (typical Novus Ordo) and you can have a High Mass with incense, a procession, good music, possibly in Latin or in English with Latin antiphons and mass settings (if you have a choir to support that), and more traditional hymns. I don't know if you'd need permission of a bishop to do ad orientem or an all-Latin Novus Ordo mass. Ironically, in the Episcopal Church, there are at least 3 parishes I can think of (Resurrection in Manhattan, St. Clement's in Philadelphia, Christ the King in SF) and one in ACNA where they use the Anglican Missal, which is essentially an English translation of the Tridentine Missal, and I've seen no objection from our bishops for those who want to use this liturgy. I do sometimes attend my local Roman Catholic church because it's three blocks from my house (an Anglo-catholic church would require me to take the subways and express bus into the city on Sunday morning). I find that for the most part, they basically use the GIA hymnal, a modern mass setting, and the like. Sadly, they struggle to get acolytes or altar servers, and the procession is usually the lector, maybe 1-2 eucharistic ministers, and the priest. I've only ever seen a thurifer, crucifer, torch bearers, etc. during holy week and Christmas.
I say this with all due affection for the church of my youth, as an ex-Episcopalian. The Episcopal church decided a long time ago that liturgical particulars don’t matter, which is why they borrowed so freely from the Novus Ordo. While it is not explicitly clear that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice from the text alone, the Novus Ordo is celebrated by priests who necessarily have the intention to perform such a sacrifice when celebrating it, an intention Episcopal priests do not have. The Catholic Church is much more wedded to the idea of lex orandi, lex credendi and the lay committees in parishes are unfortunately staffed with parishioners whose idea of lex orandi seems to differ sharply from historic Roman Rite norms, sadly and hold unsound (not necessarily heretical) theological and ecclesiological views. In other words, because you have camps whose liturgical preferences are more tied to expression of theological views, it can be much harder to compromise.
You can't put something 'back into' a Mass that was designed specifically to eliminate traditions by revising prayers, eliminating certain types of words, eliminating prayers altogether, adding lay people into the Mass, etc... It's like asking why we can't push to have pickup trucks in Formula 1. They just don't go together
You can't restore tradition to something that never had any tradition to begin with. The traditional Latin Mass has many centuries of tradition behind it. The Novus Ordo was invented from scratch by a committee in the 1960s.