Back when he was the head of the Prefect for the Congregation of Divine Worship, Cardinal Robert Sarah thought long and hard about the role the liturgy played in forming Catholics.
I agree with your point, but something nags me from my parish experience. I attend a very traditional parish. It has both the NO and TLM. Our NO is celebrated on the old high altar with sung propers, hymns, incense, kneeling to receive etc. It is consistently better attended than our TLM high masses celebrated every Sunday. It seems to me that our NO mass is liked more than the TLM. I think there is a bigger market for reverent NO then trads give it credit for.
I think there's a market. People want good liturgy! I'm simply saying, in the aggregate, that people have accepted but not loved the liturgical reform.
And with reform of the reform, it doesn't help make the TLM go away, because if you can do all those things, why should people not be allowed the TLM?
There really was a belief among many ROTR types (especially pre Benedicts pontificate) that if they did it right, demand for the tlm would be moot, and their third way was the way forward
The structure of the NO fights against devotion to it simply because it has so many options. Options require subjective choices, which moves the focus from the sacrifice of Jesus to the priest celebrant or music director or deacon who chooses this prayer or that hymn or the other dismissal. It's jerky because everyone has a line in order that we might actively participate, jerkiness is not conducive to prayer or devotion. TLM: one focus (Jesus), one agent (priest), on prayer (Roman Canon). NO: kaleidescopic focus (Us!), multiple ministers, countless options.
Just an analogy, if a company innovate and that innovation did not work as expected, obviously something somewhere was wrong.
This “towards the people” innovation speaks contrary messages.
One, in terms of the role of the priest as the intermediary of the people to God and God’s prophet to the people, his facing the people while doing consecration convey an ambiguous message to his role.
Two. The metaphorical implication of the priest facing in opposite direction with the people says something too. He is not one with them.
Three. To turn towards something, implies, one had also turned away from something. A sinner turns to God, therefore he must turn away from sin.
Four. The priest as the intermediary of the congregation to God is in direct contradiction to the purpose why we are in Church to turn “towards” God, not to towards the people.
Five. The sacrifice of the Mass is first and foremost to God, not for the people. Why is the priest back to the Eucharist in the Blessed Sacrament? Why if the Tabernacle at the side. Are we coming to Church for the priest or for God? We go to Church primarily for God Six. The order of events is clear. Jesus submitted to thd will of God first in Gethsemani
before he can confidently ask the Father to “forgive them” at the cross. He has now his reason to ask the father in behalf of his brother and sisters
Seven. This is not consistent with the hierarchy of love in the greatest commandment. Love God first, neighbor second. We do not invert the order. We do not celebrate mass to please the people with the appearance of worshipping God.
Eight. The disposition of the heart to God was subordinated to the eyes of the people. My opinion this was the greatest change. It becomes more of a function than an adoration. We lost the sense of awe and wonder. So some priests dare to dance in the sanctuary in full complete vestment for mass.
Nine. By turning to the people the priest becomes the focal point of the mass not Christ in the Eucharist.
Ten. Everything followed to turn toward the people in terms of focus, priority and initiatives. The most recent is the Synod on Synodality, immigration, human fraternity, blessing of same-sex couples, etc.
How can we as a Church become children of God if our focus is not God but people? The original sin happened because Adam chose to turn towards Eve and obey her, rather than to obey God.
Let us not repeat that mistake. Let us not waste the suffereing and death of Christ Christ to save us. God first, people second. God is not a democracy.
Wonderful. Your brief glance at the 'reform of the reform' people seems too fleeting: while many of them were or are principally concerned with what you describe as 'the aesthetic' many also were or are confident that repairing 'the aesthetic' would be a step toward repairing the differently substantive issues in the Pauline <i>ordo</i>. I read this last night, probably too quickly, so will read it again this morning.
Yeah I was trying to keep it shorter. I don't want to be too flippant to the Reform of the Reform, but I think its whithering was already written in the stars when it started. That doesn't mean it was bad or useless, just that its ultimate result was what it was.
Thank you for this article and interesting thesis. I agree with much of your argument, but I don't agree that the New Order of Mass has never been "loved". I believe that there are large sections of the Church which treasure and prefer it; in a sense, however, this is a separate issue. The issue is whether its design and implementation has been more harmful or more helpful to the Faithful. People will have different views on that, but perhaps long-term "results" are the most compelling argument. I would also comment that its implementers didn't necessarily consider themselves "holier" than their predecessors in the Faith, but rather more "enlightened".
When I say "loved", there simply is not a devotion to the Novus Ordo the way there is to the TLM or various Eastern liturgies. That doesn't mean people hate it, don't like it, etc. As I said, people build their life around it. People gain much out of it. But there's always a difference between the way people approach the NO, and the way people approach more traditional rites. Part of it is a mindset the Church instilled that tradition doesn't matter, and ergo, people don't build too strong an attachment to something that is viewed as needing to change by its very nature of existing.
Agreed your summary was excellent. However in the link posted above the author points out that a very large number of the world's Catholics do not have a movement for the TLM and seem content with the NO. The experience in Africa and Asia would not have included a long attachment to the traditional rite, so they were starting more or less de novo. But your point probably stands with respect to Europe and the Americas.
And the devotion to the TLM is primarily U.S., France, and UK. Maybe a critical mass in Brazil. I say that as someone who is edified by the TLM (less by its "low mass" form). I am a refuse to die RoTR type. But I do acknowledge ultimately a ROTR has to be led by a Pope and/or Council. At the parish level, years of progress can be erased by a new Priest. The same is true of a diocese (though the swing is arguably not be as great - St. John Cantius has been given relative freedom under the Tradition -hostile Cardinal of Chicago.)
See I actually disagree. Liturgical reform needs a pope, and a council certainly helps. But it doesn't need its leadership. The Roman Rite developed over centuries without a ton of "leadership" by Rome, outside of a few decisive moments. (Gregory's reorganization of the canon for example.)
I agree with your point, but something nags me from my parish experience. I attend a very traditional parish. It has both the NO and TLM. Our NO is celebrated on the old high altar with sung propers, hymns, incense, kneeling to receive etc. It is consistently better attended than our TLM high masses celebrated every Sunday. It seems to me that our NO mass is liked more than the TLM. I think there is a bigger market for reverent NO then trads give it credit for.
I think there's a market. People want good liturgy! I'm simply saying, in the aggregate, that people have accepted but not loved the liturgical reform.
And with reform of the reform, it doesn't help make the TLM go away, because if you can do all those things, why should people not be allowed the TLM?
There really was a belief among many ROTR types (especially pre Benedicts pontificate) that if they did it right, demand for the tlm would be moot, and their third way was the way forward
The structure of the NO fights against devotion to it simply because it has so many options. Options require subjective choices, which moves the focus from the sacrifice of Jesus to the priest celebrant or music director or deacon who chooses this prayer or that hymn or the other dismissal. It's jerky because everyone has a line in order that we might actively participate, jerkiness is not conducive to prayer or devotion. TLM: one focus (Jesus), one agent (priest), on prayer (Roman Canon). NO: kaleidescopic focus (Us!), multiple ministers, countless options.
To frame this problem as a liturgical war is to be deflected from the truth. Christ is the point of the mass, not people.
Just an analogy, if a company innovate and that innovation did not work as expected, obviously something somewhere was wrong.
This “towards the people” innovation speaks contrary messages.
One, in terms of the role of the priest as the intermediary of the people to God and God’s prophet to the people, his facing the people while doing consecration convey an ambiguous message to his role.
Two. The metaphorical implication of the priest facing in opposite direction with the people says something too. He is not one with them.
Three. To turn towards something, implies, one had also turned away from something. A sinner turns to God, therefore he must turn away from sin.
Four. The priest as the intermediary of the congregation to God is in direct contradiction to the purpose why we are in Church to turn “towards” God, not to towards the people.
Five. The sacrifice of the Mass is first and foremost to God, not for the people. Why is the priest back to the Eucharist in the Blessed Sacrament? Why if the Tabernacle at the side. Are we coming to Church for the priest or for God? We go to Church primarily for God Six. The order of events is clear. Jesus submitted to thd will of God first in Gethsemani
before he can confidently ask the Father to “forgive them” at the cross. He has now his reason to ask the father in behalf of his brother and sisters
Seven. This is not consistent with the hierarchy of love in the greatest commandment. Love God first, neighbor second. We do not invert the order. We do not celebrate mass to please the people with the appearance of worshipping God.
Eight. The disposition of the heart to God was subordinated to the eyes of the people. My opinion this was the greatest change. It becomes more of a function than an adoration. We lost the sense of awe and wonder. So some priests dare to dance in the sanctuary in full complete vestment for mass.
Nine. By turning to the people the priest becomes the focal point of the mass not Christ in the Eucharist.
Ten. Everything followed to turn toward the people in terms of focus, priority and initiatives. The most recent is the Synod on Synodality, immigration, human fraternity, blessing of same-sex couples, etc.
How can we as a Church become children of God if our focus is not God but people? The original sin happened because Adam chose to turn towards Eve and obey her, rather than to obey God.
Let us not repeat that mistake. Let us not waste the suffereing and death of Christ Christ to save us. God first, people second. God is not a democracy.
Wonderful. Your brief glance at the 'reform of the reform' people seems too fleeting: while many of them were or are principally concerned with what you describe as 'the aesthetic' many also were or are confident that repairing 'the aesthetic' would be a step toward repairing the differently substantive issues in the Pauline <i>ordo</i>. I read this last night, probably too quickly, so will read it again this morning.
Yeah I was trying to keep it shorter. I don't want to be too flippant to the Reform of the Reform, but I think its whithering was already written in the stars when it started. That doesn't mean it was bad or useless, just that its ultimate result was what it was.
Thank you for this article and interesting thesis. I agree with much of your argument, but I don't agree that the New Order of Mass has never been "loved". I believe that there are large sections of the Church which treasure and prefer it; in a sense, however, this is a separate issue. The issue is whether its design and implementation has been more harmful or more helpful to the Faithful. People will have different views on that, but perhaps long-term "results" are the most compelling argument. I would also comment that its implementers didn't necessarily consider themselves "holier" than their predecessors in the Faith, but rather more "enlightened".
Another article :
https://saintbedestudio.blogspot.com/2023/06/walking-to-heaven-backward-reposted.html
When I say "loved", there simply is not a devotion to the Novus Ordo the way there is to the TLM or various Eastern liturgies. That doesn't mean people hate it, don't like it, etc. As I said, people build their life around it. People gain much out of it. But there's always a difference between the way people approach the NO, and the way people approach more traditional rites. Part of it is a mindset the Church instilled that tradition doesn't matter, and ergo, people don't build too strong an attachment to something that is viewed as needing to change by its very nature of existing.
Agreed your summary was excellent. However in the link posted above the author points out that a very large number of the world's Catholics do not have a movement for the TLM and seem content with the NO. The experience in Africa and Asia would not have included a long attachment to the traditional rite, so they were starting more or less de novo. But your point probably stands with respect to Europe and the Americas.
And the devotion to the TLM is primarily U.S., France, and UK. Maybe a critical mass in Brazil. I say that as someone who is edified by the TLM (less by its "low mass" form). I am a refuse to die RoTR type. But I do acknowledge ultimately a ROTR has to be led by a Pope and/or Council. At the parish level, years of progress can be erased by a new Priest. The same is true of a diocese (though the swing is arguably not be as great - St. John Cantius has been given relative freedom under the Tradition -hostile Cardinal of Chicago.)
See I actually disagree. Liturgical reform needs a pope, and a council certainly helps. But it doesn't need its leadership. The Roman Rite developed over centuries without a ton of "leadership" by Rome, outside of a few decisive moments. (Gregory's reorganization of the canon for example.)
How does one handle an infallible but imprudent pope?
Feel free to show where!
Am I off on the Church beleiving the Latin Mass would die off? Am I wrong that it didn't? Am I wrong that this threw Church leaders for a loop?
I re-read the article and realized my hasty comment was based on a misunderstanding.
On what?