The new and old liturgies compared

[melancholicus]

Will do, Guillaume. See here:
irishcatholics.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=talk&action=display&thread=510

[hibernicus]

www.podles.org/dialogue/traditionalist-mass-in-paris-366.htm
Leon Podles describes his experience at a SSPX Mass in Paris - I think he has noted a big problem for us trads:
EXTRACT
The priest was young and enthusiastic – enthusiastic about the way the liturgy was celebrated. He talked about the great privilege of saying the mass and administering the sacraments in the traditional rite. All very well, but there was no mention of the Death and Resurrection of the Lord. In other words, it was a sermon about liturgical externals, which may be important, but not about the reality to which the liturgy bears witness. The attitude was a little narcissistic and self-congratulatory. Again, this was only one sermon, so I will not generalize that that is the attitude of most or all priests of the Society. But it did differ from excellent sermons I later heard in Spain. The masses may have been in the new rite and, except in Santiago itself, not equal in splendor to the mass at St. Nicholas, but the sermons were about the essentials of Christianity – the Death and Resurrection of the Lord, of the new life He has given us, and even about our union with Him through martyrdom.
END

[hibernicus]

Damian Thompson (and several other bloggers, whom you can find by followign the links in THompson's post) highlights an extraordinary sermon by the Bishop of Menevia (the diocese covering central and western Wales) which attributes clerical child abuse to the "high" image of priestly authority associated with the Tridentine Rite.
Thompson rightly points out that neither liberal nor conservative clerics have had a monopoly of abuse, and that "clericalism" could be seen in the imposition of liberal fads as much as in the image of the priest as alter Christus in more than a symbolic sense.
I am linking to this because this idea that traditionalism and clerical authority per se are the fons et origo of clerical abuse, and that to revive the TLM would re-create the mentality that led to abuse, enjoys a widespread vogue among liberals. It certainly seems to underlie the extraordinary diatribe which young Fr Byrne of Carlow produced in response ot the recent High Mass at Maynooth (you may recall that amongst other things he compared it to a horror movie). Traditionalists had better articulate a defence against these claims - and a specifically Irish defence which acknowledges the specific horrors we have seen in this country - or we will find that the public mind has been completely poisoned on this issue before we know where we are.
blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100070181/bishop-associates-traditionalists-with-paedophilia/

I don’t want to end 2010 on a bitter note, so let me be careful how I put this: Bishop Tom Burns of Menevia has published in his 2011 diocesan yearbook a sermon the like of which I hope no Catholic will have to endure in the coming year or any other.

The homily – originally preached to mark the end of the year for priests – begins with reflections on the priesthood. Bishop Burns lays stress on the priesthood of all believers, not glossing over the distinction between Holy Orders and the role of the laity but perhaps blurring it a little. Still, that’s very much in the “spirit of Vatican II” and as such unremarkable. The bishop describes the privilege of celebrating the Eucharist and immediately juxtaposes it with the sins committed by those ordained to celebrate Mass: the same hands that consecrate were employed to commit sin, he says, which strikes me as an appropriately vivid way of conveying the terrible reality.

But Bishop Burns’s thoughtfulness only make worse what follows: a cold-hearted attack on liturgical traditionalists that accuses them of trying to preserve the culture of “clericalism” that enabled the abuse to take place. Here’s the relevant section of the homily, which you can find in full on Chris Gillibrand’s blog:

For priests who offended, I’m not sure that their abuses grew out of the rule of celibacy; abuse happens within otherwise good families too. I’m more convinced that it grew out of the clericalism of the past. That clericalism risks raising its head today among those who again are looking for identity in status, not service. They want to be treated differently. There are those who set high standards of morality for lay people, while they blatantly violate those same standards themselves. There are those who go to extremes to express the Mass in a particular way, whether it is in the Ordinary Form or Extraordinary Form, in a so-called VAT II rite or Tridentine Rile, through the “People’s Mass” or the “Priest’s Mass”. Some want to put the priest on a pedestal, whilst the people are consigned to be privileged spectators outside the rails. Flamboyant modes of liturgical vestments and rubrical gestures abound. Women are denied all ministries at Mass: doing the Readings, the serving, the Bidding Prayers, and taking Communion to the Sick. To many in our Church and beyond, this comes across as triumphalism and male domination. This clericalism conceals the fact that the Church as an institution has often acted in collusion with what I can only regard as structural sinfulness. It has paid dearly for it and is untrue to its humble Founder, Jesus Christ.

The Pope wears ornate vestments and is precise in his rubrical gestures: is he included in Bishop Burns’s lofty dismissal of a moribund liturgical culture? Or is he referring to Catholics in his own diocese? (There can’t be many: Welsh traditionalists have been pretty much hunted to extinction in recent years.) But it is the implied guilt by association between traditionalism and paedophilia that is shocking, because it is based on a distorted analysis of clerical child abuse.

Did clericalism enable priestly paedophiles to conceal their crimes? Of course it did. But clericalism – that is, an exaggerated respect for the clergy, over and above that earned by their ministry – did not evaporate as soon as the altar rails were dismantled. Nor did the personality cult of the priest disappear just because he wore a polyester poncho instead of a silk fiddleback. On the contrary, the new praetorian guard of “empowered” lay people often helped to create it.

Likewise, bishops did not suddenly become more humble: in place of ring-kissing and traditional signs of respect they assumed the dignity of cabinet ministers, each with his portfolio and (frequently obsequious) special advisers. The corporate responsibility of Bishops’ Conferences has recently helped push through badly needed child protection measures – but only after many years in which those same conferences protected their own inadequate bishops, who in turn were sometimes responsible for shielding disgusting child abusers. (Fr Ray Blake makes a similar point on his blog; see also Linen on the Hedgerow and Fr Michael Brown’s Forest Murmurs.)

I don’t have much patience with Catholics who blame child abuse on “liberalism”: some of the worst criminals in recent Church history have been liturgical conservatives. On the other hand, the Pope was right to remind us, in Light of the World, that post-1960s naivety persuaded certain bishops to give paedophile priests a second chance, with wretched consequences. But clericalism, too, played its part in the crimes of priests who were liturgical innovators, not reactionaries. Their apparently spontaneous, happy-go-lucky charisma was derived from the institutional power of the priesthood. Their fan clubs of “lay ministers” did no more to protect children than did the priest-worshipping parents of an earlier generation who refused to believe that Father could ever contemplate such sins.

[shane]

^^^^I made comments in that thread this morning. Page 3 or 4.

[hibernicus]

Shane's comments were on the specific issue of industrial schools which are something of a side issue in this context. Otherwise I would have reproduced them here.

[hibernicus]

There is an article in the June/July 2012 issue of CHRISTIAN ORDER, which puts forward an argument that strikes me as very dubious. It argues that the replacement of the TLM by the NO encouraged homosexuality in the priesthood because the EF requires the celebrant to submerge his personality in the rite while the OF puts him at the centre of the action. The piece suggested that the latter appeals to the show-off and dress-up mentality found among a certain type of homosexual. I think this is a very questionable argument because everyone knows that Anglican High Ritualism, which used and often still uses many rituals from the EF, has traditionally often attracted homosexuals of a flamboyantly "camp" type, and that such people sometimes turn up in Catholic traditionalist groups [the English variety have been known to sneer at the British LMS as the "Low Mass Society" and demand that rituals should be as gorgeous and elaborate as possible; indeed in the old days Anglican Ritualists who converted to Catholicism often complained that the standard Low Mass was drab and businesslike compared to their former liturgies, and some of them would have liked to revive the Sarum Rite - which is much more elaborate than the EF HIgh Mass, and has no associated Low Mass - if they could get away with it]. What this has in common with the OF homosexual is the attitude that the celebrant invents the liturgy rather than participating in it/taking it for granted.
The Society of St John the Evangelist, which caused so much trouble in the diocese of Scranton in Pennsylvania with their luxurious lifestyles and questionable behaviour, to put it mildly, are an egregious example of this sort of "camp" traditionalism.

[hibernicus]

Fr Zuhlsdorf reproduces from another blog a post in which a priest suggests that many priests lack understanding of ritual and have forgotten/do not realise that the liturgy is primarily addressed to God:

wdtprs.com/blog/2013/05/a-priest-reacts-to-priests-reacting-to-the-new-translation/
EXTRACT
Most priests do not seem to ever have thought about the nature of ritual at all. The priest who comes out on the altar and greets the folks in his own colloquial way, and then starts the Mass with the text, doesn’t realize that there IS a greeting in the Mass. He speaks in “real life” and then retreats to the formal worship. He does so at the end as well. “Have a nice day!”

This priest I concelebrated with did not seem to realize that in the Eucharistic Prayer we are speaking to God, not the congregation. [There it is.]

I believe that putting the priest celebrant behind the altar facing the people was a very serious, core error. [Do I hear an "AMEN!"?] When I celebrate the Traditional Mass or the Anglican Use liturgy (which is generally celebrated with the traditional altar ceremonies), I come before the altar, face it in the same direction as the people, and begin Mass by addressing Him. I submit myself to the rite; the people submit themselves to the rite. We participate together.

The Novus Ordo has made the priest the focus. He starts by initiating a dialogue with the people. He keeps up this dialogue throughout the Mass. He stands behind the Altar like Julia Child doing a cooking demonstration at her kitchen island. [Good one!]...
END OF EXTRACT
Has anyone out there any thoughts on this?

[melancholicus]

The late Michael Davies drew attention to this difference of liturgical ethos between the pre- and post-conciliar rites on numerous occasions in his writings.

Speaking for myself, I believe the re-orientation of the priest - turning him round to face the congregation instead of facing the altar/tabernacle/east - is the single most damaging liturgical change introduced by the innovators. Be he never so well intentioned, facing the people will encourage the priest to interact with his audience and attempt to amuse and interest them on a human level. Confronted with a sea of faces it is easy to forget he is talking not to them but to God; it is a matter of basic human psychology. The new rite is also long on readings, responsorial psalms, bidding prayers, etc. and short on sacrificial action, so that also tends to shift the focus onto the 'gathered assembly' and away from God.

Then of course there is the stumbling block of what passes for liturgical training in modern seminaries. As I have not attended a 'renewed' post-conciliar seminary, I cannot comment with authority, but I doubt the seminarians are taught the principles of liturgy in accordance with the mind of the Church. Around the turn of the millennium I watched a televised Easter Vigil Mass celebrated by the Bishop of Meath. One of the concelebrants was a young (and probably newly-ordained) priest who, during his reading of his portion of the eucharistic prayer, kept raising his eyes and looking up as though he were reading the evening news. I had not yet discovered the pre-conciliar Mass and was not (yet) what one could call a Traditionalist, but this young priest's actions struck me as so odd and out of place that I cried out "you're praying to God, sonny, not to the congregation!"

[hibernicus]

Dom Alcuin Reid reviews a book which argues that real liturgical participation can only be achieved through the OF and that the EF is fatally non-participatory:
www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2014/01/beyond-pius-v-by-andrea-grillo-review.html#disqus_thread
EXTRACT
This is Grillo’s straw man: the conviction—often found amongst liturgists and prelates in Italy—that the new rites are themselves essential to liturgical formation, to the achievement of participatio actuosa and to the renewal of ecclesial life, and that the usus antiquior is, of its essence, antithetical to the achievement of these indispensible aims. Hence the book’s anxiety about Benedict XVI’s supposed liturgical regression in Summorum Pontificum: Paul VI ushered in the long-desired age of liturgical enlightenment, as it were, and there can be absolutely no going back.

It is difficult if not impossible to produce accurate statistical evidence, but experience suggests that there are many celebrations of the modern rites today in which congregations participate minimally, despite the fact that the reformed rites have been radically simplified to facilitate their participation, and have, to a similar end, been completely vernacularised. I would argue, perhaps with Grillo, that a deficit in formation is a primary cause of this, and that without formation a congregation attending celebrations according to the modern rites in 2014 might be less able to participate than a congregation in 1954, especially given that then, before “the” reform, the nature of the liturgy as ritual may have been at least more latently appreciated even if explicit formation in it was lacking.

What I think is self-evident, however, is that the overwhelming majority of contemporary celebrations of the Sacred Liturgy (and not only Holy Mass) according to the usus antiquior evince a level of formation and true liturgical participation with which the Fathers of the twentieth-century liturgical movement and indeed of the Second Vatican Council would be utterly delighted. Participatio actuosa is perhaps no more evident than in such celebrations. This may be a providential fruit of the post-conciliar proscription of these rites: people have had to invest and sacrifice substantially in order to have access to them. People frequenting them have had a long and at times costly liturgical formation. Perhaps also it is due to the very demands they place on the worshipper—one has to find ways of connecting with these rites, or indeed of allowing them to connect with us, because of their ritual complexity. Their multivalent nature has a particular value: it provides varying means of connection with Christ acting in the liturgy that perhaps better correspond to our differing temperaments and psyches.

Hence Benedict XVI was rightly able to say in his letter presenting Summorum Pontificum: “It has clearly been demonstrated that young persons too have discovered this liturgical form, felt its attraction and found in it a form of encounter with the Mystery of the Most Holy Eucharist, particularly suited to them.” But not as a rejection of the Sacred Liturgy as fons, or from any fetish for a luddite liturgical past, but as a recognition that “what earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us to,” as Benedict XVI asserted. Indeed these rites do have their “proper place” in the liturgical life—dare I say in the liturgical renewal—of the Church at the beginning of the twenty-first century. The many and predominantly young communities, personal parishes, seminaries and religious houses—in communion with the local bishop—at whose living heart is living worship according to the usus antiquior bear ongoing testimony to this reality.

Grillo’s new and final chapter, written post-Summorum Pontificum, confesses amazement and confusion at what he calls the “virtual reality” promoted by the Motu Proprio and the subsequent Instruction Universae Ecclesiae, which includes, he asserts, the danger of leading the Church to nothing other than a “virtual heresy” (p. 115). In truth, this chapter is not as considered as the previous ones and a certain cynicism arises (the Instruction is parodied as “Introversae Ecclesiae”), which detracts from the book as a whole. It does indeed passionately proclaim Grillo’s fundamental stance that one must accept “the” liturgical reform absolutely and to the exclusion of all that came before (and of course, to the exclusion of any possible “reform of the reform”—which is dismissed out of hand), but such shouting is simply not convincing.
END OF EXTRACT

NB - Dom Reid's review is reproduced for the sake of its arguments and this post does not necessarily constitute endorsement of Dom Reid himself or of all his positions

[hibernicus]

Fr Kocik, whose book THE REFORM OF THE REFORM has been noticed elsewhere on this board, has published an article declaring that he now believes the OF created under Paul VI is such an inorganic change that a "reform of the reform" blend is really not possible; future liturgical growth must take the EF as its starting point and try to implement the sort of change the Fathers of Vatican II thought they were getting, as distinct from what they did get.
Whatever we may think of the article RORATE CAELI has been characteristically unhelpful by comparing it to Tract 90 (Newman's proposal to reinterpret Anglicanism in a sense compatible with Catholicism, which provoked such an outcry that he realised he could no longer minister as an Anglican). Any attempt to eqauate the OF with Anglicanism and the EF alone with true Catholicism is utterly outside the pale IMHO - straight sedevacantism.

www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2014/02/reforming-irreformable.html#.Uv_Ypfl_vY4
EXTRACT
let us suppose, practically speaking and perhaps per impossibile, that the ‘reform of the reform’ were to receive substantive institutional support. Even so, I doubt the endeavor would be feasible—if we take that term to mean the reform of the present order of liturgy so as to bring it substantially back into line with the slowly developed tradition it widely displaced. It is not sour grapes about last year’s papal abdication that prompts my saying so. Like any movement, the ‘reform of the reform’ stands or falls on its own principles, not on any one pope or partisan. No: the ‘reform of the reform’ is not realizable because the material discontinuity between the two forms of the Roman rite presently in use is much broader and much deeper than I had first imagined. In the decade that has elapsed since the publication of my book, The Reform of the Reform? A Liturgical Debate (Ignatius Press, 2003), which concerns almost exclusively the rite of Mass, a number of important scholarly studies, most notably those of László Dobszay (†2011)6 and Lauren Pristas,7 have opened my eyes to the hack-job inflicted by Pope Paul VI’s Consilium on the whole liturgical edifice of the Latin Church: the Mass; the Divine Office; the rites of the sacraments, sacramentals, blessings and other services of the Roman Ritual; and so forth.8 Whatever else might be said of the reformed liturgy—its pastoral benefits, its legitimacy, its rootedness in theological ressourcement, its hegemonic status, etc.—the fact remains: it does not represent an organic development of the liturgy which Vatican II (and, four centuries earlier, the Council of Trent) inherited.

There are significant ruptures in content and form that cannot be remedied simply by restoring Gregorian chant to primacy of place as the music of the Roman rite, expanding the use of Latin and improving vernacular translations of the Latin liturgical texts, using the Roman Canon more frequently (if not exclusively),9 reorienting the altar, and rescinding certain permissions. As important as it is to celebrate the reformed rites correctly, reverently, and in ways that make the continuity with tradition more obvious, such measures leave untouched the essential content of the rites. Any future attempt at liturgical reconciliation, or renewal in continuity with tradition, would have to take into account the complete overhaul of the propers of the Mass;10 the replacement of the Offertory prayers with modern compositions; the abandonment of the very ancient annual Roman cycle of Sunday Epistles and Gospels; the radical recasting of the calendar of saints; the abolition of the ancient Octave of Pentecost, the pre-Lenten season of Septuagesima and the Sundays after Epiphany and Pentecost; the dissolution of the centuries-old structure of the Hours; and so much more. To draw the older and newer forms of the liturgy closer to each other would require much more movement on the part of the latter form, so much so that it seems more honest to speak of a gradual reversal of the reform (to the point where it once again connects with the liturgical tradition received by the Council) rather than a reform of it.

The twofold desire of the Council fathers, namely, to permit innovations that “are genuinely and certainly required for the good of the Church” and to “adopt new forms which in some way grow organically from forms already existing” (SC 23) could indeed be fulfilled, but not by taking the rites promulgated by Paul VI as the point of departure for arriving at a single, organically reformed version of the ancient Roman rite: that would be like trying to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again. What is needed is not a ‘reform of the reform’ but rather a cautious adaptation of the Tridentine liturgy in accordance with the principles laid down by Sacrosanctum Concilium (as happened in the immediate aftermath of that document’s promulgation in 1963), using what we have learned from the experience of the past fifty years.11 In the meantime, improvements can be made here and there in the ars celebrandi of the Ordinary Form. But the road to achieving a sustainable future for the traditional Roman rite12—and to achieving the liturgical vision of Vatican II, which ordered the moderate adaptation of that rite, not its destruction—is the beautiful and proper celebration, in an increasing number of locations, of the Extraordinary Form, with every effort to promote the core principle (properly understood) of “full, conscious and active participation” of the faithful (SC 14).
END

[hibernicus]

Joseph Shaw has an article on his blog commenting on Pope Francis's critical remarks about "reform of the reform" as supporting his own view that it is better to promote the EF directly rather than trying to develop the OF in the direction of the EF
www.lmschairman.org/2015/02/pope-francis-on-reform-of-reform.html#more
One commenter points out that since Shaw admits that the EF is always going to be a minority interest, it is just not good enough for him to be dismissive about how the OF is celebrated
Meanwhile, other bloggers are pointing out the problem with the Pope's remarks; whatever his own intentions may have been, they will be used by those authorities so disposed to justify pressurising priests and seminarians seen as traditionally-inclined in liturgical matters:
catholicismpure.wordpress.com/2015/02/20/francis-says-reform-of-the-reform-is-mistaken-traditionalist-seminarians-criticized-pope-says-their-imbalances-are-manifested-in-their-celebration-of-the-liturgy/

[hibernicus]

Father Dwight Longenecker argues that while he admires the zeal of trads for the EF Mass, it is not the whole solution; the Church's problems are far older and deeper than the Council (and he appears to suggest that catechesis lies near to the root).
www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2015/09/is-the-latin-mass-the-magic-bullet.html

[hibernicus]

Joseph Shaw of the England & wales Latin Mass Society has a response to Fr Longenecker's piece (linked in previous post):
www.lmschairman.org/2015/10/fr-longenecker-latin-mass-and-magic.html#more

[maolsheachlann]

I increasingly dislike Fr. Longenecker for the arrogance of his tone, not to mention the fact that he disables comments on his blog posts (which seems arrogant in itself). But I think he has the better of this exchange. He's not saying the liturgy makes no difference; he's saying that it is not the critical difference. Shaw seems to be missing this point.

Shaw's argument, it seems to me, only really applies to the prospect of the Latin Mass replacing the Ordinary Form. Because aren't the people who attend the Latin Mass people who already share his sentiments (which are indeed noble sentiments)?

Kudos to him for using the word 'epiphenomenon' though.

[rogerbuck]

I have only scanned Shaw's response, but I am concerned that Fr. Longenecker has closed the door to deeper dimensions here.

Quick comment re these three sentences from Fr. Longenecker:

The reason the Novus Ordo so often seems irreverent is not any intrinsic deficit in the Novus Ordo. (otherwise why would Holy Church say that it remains the Ordinary Form of the Mass?) Instead the Novus Ordo is sometimes celebrated irreverently because people regard the Mass as a celebration of their social activism, or a community festival to increase their self esteem or a sentimental, individualistic, spiritual comfort session.

The first sentence seems far too categorical to me, as though he may not willing to struggle with the possibility there even _could_ be a deficit. The second sentence only closes the door further. Unsurprisingly, the third shows no inclination to look deeper.

Personally, I had to struggle with this issue for many years. I was/am married to a woman who is far, far more liturgically sensitive than I am. Things I would never have noticed left her reduced to tears. I didn't mind the OF (and still don't when you have a truly reverent priest). But I had to ask which is right: my "not minding" or my wife's reactions (that originally seemed extreme to me).

Out of years of struggle, I have come to the conclusion that there _is_ an intrinsic deficit. One of the most obvious things here is that a priest facing the congregation cannot pray as easily. Whilst some priests can remain prayerful, for others, the temptation to become an entertainer, comedian, cheerleader, singer-star is just too great. I have witnessed appalling examples of this scores of times in thousands now of daily Masses across several countries. (And less appalling tendencies towards the same even more).

But apart from this more obvious factor of the potential for prayerfulness with ad orientam, there are many, many less obvious factors, which I now believe my wife was sensitive to, whilst I was obtuse.

Given the crisis of the Church, we cannot close the door on the notion that part of the problem, at very least, is what Fr. Longenecker spurns - that there is an intrinsic deficit here.