So I came across this
article the other day in regards to an
audience that Pope Paul VI gave on March 17
th 1965 where he attempts
to go through some observations about the liturgy’s reform. I would remind the listener here that the
audience does not specifically concern the 1970 missal commonly referred to
today as the Ordinary Form of the Mass, but rather it is concerned with the
1965 Roman Missal that first followed S.C. in taking advantage of proposals
contained within, as well as non-conciliar proposals that found their way in. This commentary is the first of two examining the audience from my stance, but it is only an opinion as the second will be.
Before I go any deeper I want to make it clear this video is
not about bashing Paul VI or the newer versions of the mass after the 1962
missal of Blessed John XXIII. Instead
this video is to point out that indeed some of the things that are commonly
thought to be mostly abuses on the part of liturgical “reformers” in fact did
have the highest support for what its worth, for better or for worse. I hope that this video will help those of you
out there think critically about some of the points made, but the commentary is
entirely my own opinion and open to criticism from all.
So with that let’s begin.
I have posted the original article I found this on below as well as the
Vatican website full text in Italian.
Use Google translate to translate the document for your own studies.
The title of the audience is labeled:
The participation of
the faithful at Mass
Dear Sons and Daughters! [Somewhat P.C. in comparison but for what it’s
worth not a big deal to me because these are informal addresses]
Our
family conversation in a hearing like this,
it cannot return to the topic of the day: the implementation of the liturgical
reform in the celebration of Holy Mass. Our desire would be to ask you, if
the public nature of this meeting not prevented, as we do in other meetings of
a private nature,
what are
your impressions about this great news. It deserves that everyone
will pay attention. Well, we think that your answer to our question would
not be dissimilar to those that we reach these days.
[Notice the wording used in this audience it’s not about
magersarial church teaching specifically, but more-so a father family
conversation, and fairly informal at that.
After all a conversation doesn’t necessarily suppose a conclusion. When Pope Paul asks for impressions about the
news of the revised missal (1965 RM), he is, at least in my mind’s eye, rather jubilant
at what is about to be discussed.
Whenever my family sits down at the dinner table and my Dad says
something jovial to this effect something big is underway, as those attending
the audience would later learn was in fact about to occur. I also want to note how he asks for their
impressions of the great news. I would
remind the viewer here of what happened after the revised missal came out last
Advent when the people on both sides of the theological aisle where proclaiming
it an objective failure to reach what was really needed for the Church. I would also quickly remind the viewer that
there is nothing wrong with having the conversation in the first place, but
using such democratic terms when speaking of something so protected as the
sacred liturgy over the years should concern even the average Ordinary Form
goer that has some clue as to the importance of the liturgy and what it is.]
.jpg)
The liturgical reform? Can be reduced to two categories those
answers. The first category is that of the responses noted some confusion, and therefore a
nuisance: first, say these observers, it was easy, everyone could pray
as she wanted, everything was known about the performance of the rite, and now
everything is new, surprise , change, even the sound of the bell at the Sanctus
was abolished, and then those prayers that you do not know where to go and
find, that communion received standing, and the end of the Mass that ends in
the trunk with the blessing, all of which meet Many moving, rituals and
readings recited aloud. . ., In short, there is no peace and we
understand less than before, and so on.
[I don’t know whether or not this whole issue can be reduced
to two categories but I will hit that hopefully later. It first notes that the first category is based
on responses noting confusion, therefore a nuisance. Confusion doesn't outright guarantee a
nuisance by any standard. Of course the
translation could be off, but a nuisance is had when something is left
unchecked to which I think part of this audience (although not seen by most of
the faithful as today's are, sought to clarify the matter before the confusion
developed into a nuisance. He then
delves into the concerns about the new form of the liturgy. He mentions that the people protesting the
change complain that prayer was freer, that actions in the worship were
known. In itself this is a caricature of
why people were up in arms about the change, but I want to quickly hit this as
spoken. That people were freer to pray
then they are now is a fascinating response.
Considering that I frequent the TLM usually about two days a week and
the ordinary form about three to four days I do notice the difference that is
being talked about. When you at the
Extraordinary form you can in fact (and most do) follow the missal which
containing both the spoken Latin and vernacular translation and thus keep
yourself focused directly on the actions visibly occurring in the sanctuary. So too, and I do this less often, one can
take the time while at the Holy Sacrifice to offer up prayers of any sort
including the rosary which is so often maligned by people thinking that saying the rosary
at mass is inappropriate because it disallows real focus to be had on that is
actually occurring at that time. I
disagree with this thought because one can be praying at any mass in either
form and not be directly focused on the very word, and also action proceeding
from the one acting in persona Christi.
Just think of how many times when you hear a reading from scripture or a
Eucharistic prayer your mind wanders and you miss the point of either. Yet you hopefully were in a state of prayer
when your find wandered. See even with
the vernacular we become familiar with what is said and not to say be dismiss
it but it loses some of the luster that it is always to perpetuate. Having the chance to focus your attention
toward something like a set prayer like the rosary will enable the person to
keep their mind always centered toward God.
What I am trying to say is that focus if centered toward the Lord is
what we are expected of firstly at the Mass.
One of the things that was forgotten by ridding the liturgy of the bells
is the quick response call to focus on what is about to happen concerning the
very moment we are transported to Golgotha to take part in the Death of
Christ. I also wanted to make note of
the non-scilant way that he brings up reception of the Blessed Sacrament
standing. Perhaps it’s the informal way
the address was given but the way in which he receives us is very
important. Everything that occurs at the
liturgy including our postures and our mindset speak to who God is and his
expectations of his children. I also
wanted to speak to the last part of this paragraph which states: In short, there is no peace and we understand
less than before, and so on. I can
actually agree to this statement of those questioning the change because there
is an utter lack of silence in the mass and people are constantly called on to
do something during every aspect of the mass whether sing or hold hands or
motion with your hands one way or the other.
I came across a good article the other day on how silence is fundamental
to the lived experience of the mass. http://www.ignitumtoday.com/2013/02/21/tlm-praying-in-silence/
There is a question also as to
whether we understand less than before, specifically as to whether some of the
prayers now offered by the priest and faithful are somewhat ambiguous thus can
lead people to misunderstand their true meaning.]
We will make no criticism of these observations, why should we show how they
reveal poor penetration of the meaning of religious rites, and a glimpse not
have a true devotion and a real sense of the meaning and value of the Holy
Mass, but rather a certain spiritual indolence, who does not want to spend a
few personal effort of intelligence and participation to better understand and
better fulfill the most sacred of religious acts, to which we are invited,
indeed obliged to associate. Repeat what these days by all the priests and
pastors from all good teachers of religion has been saying: first, that occurs
at the beginning some confusion and some discomfort is inevitable, it is in the
nature of a practical reform, as well as spiritual, religious habits ingrained
and widely observed, producing a little 'upheaval, not always pleasant at all,
but, second, some explanation, some preparation, some will assist you soon
remove uncertainty and damage the sense and the taste of a new order. Why, third, we must not
believe that after some time you will return quiet and devout or lazy, as
before, no, the new order will be different, and will have to stop and shake
the liability of the faithful present at Mass, before enough help, now we must
part, before the presence enough, now you need your attention and action, and
before anyone could nap and maybe chat, not now, to listen and to pray. Hopefully
soon celebrants and faithful will have new liturgical books and that these also
reflect the new form, both literal and typography, the dignity of the previous
ones. The assembly becomes alive
and active; intervene means let the soul come into activity, attention,
conversation, singing, action. The harmony of a Community act, performed not
only with outward gesture, but with the inward movement of the feeling of faith
and piety, the ritual gives strength and beauty special: it becomes a choir
concert becomes, rhythm becomes d ' a huge flying wing to the heights of the
mystery and joy of God.
[Ok so like the source I found this
audience in I too find this statement to be incredibly frustrating to be
nice. First he says he is not going to offer
criticism, then he attacks. This seems
to be the double mindedness that confuses so many in the church leading to
perpetual nescience as he addressed before.
He then says “producing a little 'upheaval, not always pleasant at all,
but, second, some explanation, some preparation, some will assist you soon
remove uncertainty and damage the sense and the taste of a new order. “ Is there anyone else out there that immediately
hears the Joker talking to Harvey Dent in the Hospital. Maybe it’s just me. I think the viewer can see the hatchet job
that is about to be explained away for the sake of obtaining the sense and
taste of a new order. He then goes on
and says: “after some time you will return quiet and devout or lazy, as before,
no, the new order will be different, and will have to stop and shake the
liability of the faithful present at Mass”.
It’s like he is speaking to children here, which many of us are
liturgically speaking, but he also hits those who have a great love for the
liturgy as said throughout the centuries.
I realize that maybe some people if not most people are lazy by nature
but that in itself is not the fault of the liturgy but of the person. It’s like the people that say ban guns
because they kill people, and then ignore the person and why they chose to kill
in the first place regardless of the means.
You see the gun like the mass ceases to be a means to salvation (death)
and becomes the ends which would be our own personal disposition. Having seen the results of the new mass since
I was young I can boldly say that the innovations to shake the faithful has
created a new clerical class of the laity confusing the importance of the
priest, thereby calling into question his very purpose in the first place. So too what is the deal with being quiet and
devout during the liturgy. If one’s mind
is focused toward the sacrifice whether offering prayers or in song what does
it mind them. The focus should not turn
inward with people so concerned that they are active that they forget the mass
is said for them not because they are there.
Maybe it’s just me but sometimes you hear people say the church needs to
change because if it does not they will look very foolish all by
themselves. To which I usually respond
that the initial sacrifice was only attended to by those silent and devout
among us (namely Mary and John and a small group of others). He then says the following: “now we must
part, before the presence enough, now you need your attention and action, and
before anyone could nap and maybe chat, not now, to listen and to pray.” If there is anything that I can’t stand its
people napping and chatting and quite frankly I see none of this at the TLM and
I am sure at faithful parishes with the ordinary form you don’t see this. But the blanket statement that the new mass
will somehow solve the problem is utterly frustrating. People that nap or chat can do so whether
people are supposedly expected to sing, dance or whatever, in fact try to talk
at a low TLM and see the reaction of the other parishioners about. One is either disposed toward God or he is
not. Those people were able to listen
and pray before in the silence but the hyper active new liturgical movement he
speaks of does lend itself to constant shifting, therefore constant confusion
because people are expected to follow every aspect and if they are off they
will be noticed for not being in sync. I
would note that if someone attends the TLM and is afraid of the awkwardness don’t
worry most people as long as you’re not doing crazy things are calm, plus you
can sit in the back. Oh and do where
something above casual because this won’t help the standing out thing if that’s
your concern initially. He then states
that “The assembly becomes alive and active; intervene means let the soul come
into activity, attention, conversation, singing, action.” I want to note the obvious that action is not
a merely physical aspect of ones disposition.
He specifically makes physical action the sole purpose of the
liturgy. I don’t want judge his mindset
here but I do wish to call into question why he felt urged to make the
statement in the first place…oh wait it was to eliminate confusion which
becomes a nescience…I seem to see an opposite day pattern emerging. “He then states: The harmony of a Community
act, performed not only with outward gesture, but with the inward movement of
the feeling of faith and piety, the ritual gives strength and beauty special:
it becomes a choir concert becomes, rhythm becomes d ' a huge flying wing to
the heights of the mystery and joy of God.” So my initial concern just brought
but is calmed since he says it’s not just an outward gesture, so we can put the
rifles down. Problem solved as they say.]
Part 1 done... hope it was helpful, please dont use this as a bash piece just an honest thinking through the issues we now are dealing with. Show your love for Peter, and his Brother Bishops with the Charity Holy Mother Church asks of us.
+JMJ+
