I don't exactly follow. What "invective" that occurs "so often" are you referring to? And what is the reality that it masks? Truly, I do not know what you are referring to.

The invective that I refer to occurs - on both sides, for those who prefer the liturgy of the Tridentine Mass and those prefer the novus ordo - when the "other" is painted as something less than truly Catholic or a sectarian anomaly. Such an approach misses the opportunity to discuss what the liturgy means in the life of the Church. In discussion with litrugists and priests on both sides of the fence I have encountered this often.

And what this masks - The Church's liturgy is organic; it is something that takes form over centuries, with local flavor and particularities developing along the way. Remember that Trent allowed local usages - such as the Ambrosian Rite - to persist so long as they had been in use for more than 300 years. To simply state that since the liturgy has been completely vernacular and hyperverbalized without Latin or chant for the past forty years in the typical American parish - and should thus remain - does not address why that changed occurred in the first place and what effect it has on the life of the Church. And similarly, to state that the novus ordo is unreflective of the Mass the ages and should thus be avoided does not take note that a Council promulgated the liturgy.

And this is the other part of the "reality" I refer to... Both sides must take into consideration that the average Catholic in America experiences something every Sunday morning that was not envisioned by Sacrosanctum Concilium or any plausible organic or historic development of the Roman Rite. And yet such continues as a valid, licit Sacrifice of the Mass. Heeding JPII's call of "sentire cum ecclesia," we should all pause and consider what effect these liturgical developments have on the life of the Church and how we can develop a liturgy that reflects both the intentions of Paul V and Sacrosanctum Concilium while still reflecting the historic development of the Roman Rite.

Seth,

I read this as your real concern here being loss of the Rogation Days, because we have so much today to be supplicant about (just as in other times). And it may seem to you, liturgy-wise, so much has been set aside. But the Rogation Days were never part of the experience of "growing up Catholic" in my time - pre-Vatican II - (and I think I am pretty typical), so I don't think their demise can be blamed on "the reform" - maybe on the "organic" nature of the liturgy?

On the liturgical front, on a more common topic, younger people I talk with have a different view of the appeal of the "Latin" Mass, maybe because it seems more special and less commonplace than what they are accustomed to (I hope not because it seems more esoteric). But they did not experience the distancing from the Church and God that it symbolized for some of us as we grew up.

I recently had the opportunity to attend a "Latin" Mass after all these years. It seemed cold and distant (even though I could still recite all the prayers - silently, of course, because we were not "invited" to participate).

The cake was taken when the priest instructed us before the Eucharist, "Upon receiving communion, you do not have to say 'Amen', I will say it for you." So, I am not capable or worthy of uttering my belief at this sacred moment? The priest would undoubtedly have a different take on this, but to me it diminished the power and meaning - and even the reason - of the liturgy - by usurping my expression of my faith.

For me, this experience sums up the misunderstandings surrounding liturgical reform and reform of reform better than any document of any council of any century or era. We could discuss points and find historical references to debate or dialog about all day long, but in the end we will each find what is meaningful to us and cling to that.

Mary, thanks for your quick reply. Like you, my introduction to the Church was through the Tridentine Rite. Other than one or two nuptial Masses, singing Pange Lingua in the schola at Holy Rosary here in Indianapolis was my first weekly exposure to the Faith. In the years since coming into full communion I still find the Tridentine liturgy as welcoming as it did while still a Lutheran (Missouri Synod, no less). And this is not to say that the novus ordo is for me what the Tridentine liturgy has become for you; I serve as lector for the novus ordo and make every attempt to frequent both liturgies.

I am uncertain what the quotes around 'invited' connote, but again, even as a Lutheran I participated fully in the Mass. Just as we sang in English and prayed aloud at Our Redeemer Lutheran Church we chanted in Latin and prayed silently at Holy Rosary. For me to demand that the liturgy curve to my expectations would be carrying a Protestant expectation where no such expectations exist.

But in considering the celebrant's instruction that the faithful are not to respond with an "amen" seems imminently reasonable - after all this is what many Catholics have come to do in the novus ordo. And at one point I would suggest there is always a usurpation of expressing our faith - this is the nature of belonging to a liturgical church.

This is proving to be too lengthy and personal to fully examine in this medium. Let me just say:

By "Invited" I meant we were disinvited and instructed to limit our participation. So, if we chose to participate we were put in the position of being defiant. Really, maybe you had to be there.

As to the last comment, How can someone else saying "Amen" on my behalf, unless I am unconscious and having the last rites, be reasonable, no matter what other attendees of the norvus ordo are in the habit to practice or not practice?

Perhaps this exchange is an illustration of the difficulty of dialog on these topics.

I recall the Christian Brothers explaining to us in 10th grade that our Catholic Mass is the Last Supper recreated, and that it may have been a Seder. It wasn't until I married a Jew and experienced Seders myself that I came to appreciate the connection to novus ordo Missae (BTWa term I was until just now unfamiliar with, but then I am definitely not a member of the "reform the reform" crowd.)

I am just old enough to remember some of the changes brought about by Vatican II. My uncle is a Jesuit who serves overseas, and in the late 60's I recall when he came stateside, efforts always had to be made to find a place for him to stay at our parish rectory, and get him set up for his daily Masses at our parish Church. Thanks to Vatican II, by the 70s he was able to stay in my family's house, and to say Mass around our family table. And I can't even begin to explain the difference between the intimacy of a 'family' Mass like that and even a novus ordo Missae, let alone a pre 60s situation where the priest stood with his back to parishoners mumbling incomprehensible Latin phrases.

You can truly begin to get a grasp of the meaning of a Mass in that intimate situation, and having a number of Seders under my belt now, can tell you the Seder is remarkably similar to one of my uncle's at-home Masses.

Both Mass and Seder are about Redemption (the Jews from Israel), and share/use symbolic meanings of food and actions. The priest in a novus ordo Missae and the leader of the Seder share similar roles in that they interact with the other participants and lead them, the main difference being that the that for Catholics, the work of our redemption is carried out through the priest, for Jews it is achieved through through knowledge and responsibility. Both Seder and novus ordo Missae require a direct involvement by the guest/parishoner than in the pre Vatican II mass, where the involvement would be watching and spouting largely incomprehensible Latin at the priest's back.

I for one, am happy to see 'reverence' take a back seat to understanding, and for an elevation of the individual's role in his/her redemption, rather than relying so heavily on the priest/Church as in pre Vatican II times.
 

John, your comment about "an elevation of the individual's role in his/her redemption" is exceedingly pre-conciliar and Baptist at the same time - its a nice juxtaposition. And I must confess that I am unaware that the novus ordo requires the participation of the faithful in order to be valid.

John,
Thanks for the story about your uncle. I, too, experienced some of the "around the table" type of masses, and later was lucky enough to have belonged to a parish that spent a great deal of time, effort, education and thought into making liturgy understandable and meaningful, so that even the larger events had a feeling as you describe. And now that I have moved, I find that this was an exceptional accomplishment that I have been unable to find in my new environs. It's very hard to convey in words the powerful spiritual effect and connection such a liturgy provides. Even so, I would never say that someone subscribing to the pre-Council ways could not experience something similar (I'm sure my mother-in-law, for one, did), and I find it unfortunate when judgements are made about what is valid or not valid (because "mine" will always be valid, and "yours" won't be). BTW, until now I also did not know the term novus ordo Missae to refer to the Mass.

JohnS,

My understanding was that the Passover Seder and its distinctive rituals actually dates from after the destruction of the second Temple (e.g. this essay).

If that's true, then I'm not sure that celebrating a modern Jewish Seder will tell us much about Passover rituals in Jesus' time or the original Last Supper.

Can anyone comment on the accuracy of the above linked essay?

Seth

And I must confess that I am unaware that the novus ordo requires the participation of the faithful in order to be valid.

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal in #211 states, "Mass should not be celebrated without a server or the participation of at least one of the faithful except for some legitimate and reasonable cause."

According to then Cardinal Ratzinger:

"As to lay participation, the Council insists firstly and generally, that the liturgy is essentially the business of the entire Body of Christ, Head and members, and so it belongs to the entire Body of the Church. 'and it is consequently intended to be celebrated in community with the active participation of the faithful.'"

John, we both know that private Masses have been abolished, just as we both know that the "participation" to which you and I were referring is not at all what the GIRM addresses. The GIRM addresses the general requirement of having altar boys or deacon, not the participation you were lauding. Reading #211 in context this is clear.

Ratzinger's quote could just as easily be applied to the Tridentine litrugy, and nearly identical language indeed was utilized by Pius X and Pius XI. In his motu proprio Tra le Sollecitudini, Pius states, "We deem it necessary to provide before anything else for the sanctity and dignity of the temple, in which the faithful assemble for no other object than that of acquiring spirit from its foremost and indispensable, which is the active participation in the most sacred mysteries..." In 1928 Pius XI states that the faithful are to "participate more actively in divine worship" (Divini Cultus).

There's no sense in saying that somebody's feeling about something is "Baptist" or "pre-Conciliar," as if that invalidates it. Unless JohnS was conditioned by participation in the Baptist faith to respond the way he did, the fact that he had that response suggests that it is not just "Baptist," but that it touches on something more basic to human worship. If people express honest, carefully thought out concerns about how the liturgy affects them, and you dismiss those concerns as sounding "Baptist," you may find before long that those people have resolved their difficulties by becoming Baptist.

Possibly, that's an objective. I've heard it said more than once that a smaller but "more faithful" church would be preferable to a larger, less unruly one. In fact, wasn't then Cardinal Ratzinger quoted (or maybe paraphrased) here on that some months ago? That was the first time I had the inkling that it might be an "official" (yet unofficial) position.

Sorry, meant to type "more unruly" not less.

Mary,

I'm not sure that it is Pope Benedict XVI's position, but it certainly is Father John McCloskey's (the head of Opus Dei) position, and that was who I was quoting here awhile back.

I know I've heard it more than once. Here, for sure, and in a parish meeting. Although the guy who said it is someone not many people there took seriously (other than himself). How widely held do you think the idea is? I remember on topics here before there have been comments to the effect that ones who disagree with whatever have voluntarily removed themselves from the church.

Mary

McCloskey's call for a Catholic Church purified of all dissent is way out of the mainstream, even for conservative Catholics, but McCloskey had direct access to the papacy of John Paul II. I'd imagine he has the same access to Pope Benedict XVI's.

And the same foundations that have been funding movement conservatism for the past 30 years - Olin, Scaife, and Bradley - along with the conservative Catholic founder of Dominoes Pizza, are bankrolling a McCloskeyesque 'counterreformation,' as it were, tied in to Washington, DC.