I thought this article in NCR was interesting, especially since I lived through the liturgical reforms of Vatican II:
The impetus for liturgical reform and more participation of the laity was already happening well before Vatican II. During the later 1950s, and 1960s, when I attended grade school, the nuns who taught us were already implementing the "Dialogue Mass", in which the students learned and recited the responses said by the servers. The responses were still in Latin, and the students had the English and Latin daily missals to follow. Of course this wouldn't have happened without the consent of the pastor.
There were even places where the priest said Mass facing the people, though I think this was "ex officio" not formally permitted yet.
One thing that was very noticeable with the changes of Vatican II was a greater emphasis on the Scriptures, with the three year cycle which we observe now. Before that, it was a one year cycle, with more repetition of readings, and fewer Old Testament readings.
Of course it was a learning curve, and some people didn't like the changes at first. But it seemed like people got used to it, and the vernacular liturgy was well received. But not everybody was on board, including now some younger people who would have had no memory of the "before times".
From the NCR article:
"After months of poring through the major documents of the Second Vatican Council, Pope Leo XIV said the council's reform of the liturgy.... was "necessary" for the faithful to more fully participate in the celebration of Mass."
"Addressing the attendees of his weekly general audience hosted inside St. Peter's Basilica Aug. 26, Leo expounded on the motivations for the liturgical reform issued in Sancrosanctum Concilium, the council's constitution on the liturgy that opened the way for the Mass to be celebrated in the vernacular and to alter elements of the Latin-rite liturgy. "
"Drawing from the council's teaching on the liturgy and the writings of Pope Paul VI when he was archbishop of Milan, Leo recalled that the council's concern for the faithful attending Mass as "silent spectators" expressed a "renewed awareness of the value of the liturgy."
"The participation of the faithful cannot be passive," he said. "From this conviction arose the need to make the richness of the biblical texts and prayers more accessible to all the faithful, and to streamline the order of the celebration compared with that set out in the liturgical books then in use."
"The council's liturgical reform has remained a source of debate in the church since its promulgation in 1963 and it reached a fever pitch in 2021, when Pope Francis tightened restrictions on celebrating the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass. His predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, had previously loosened the restrictions. "
"The issue was thrust back into the public spotlight this summer when the clergy of the ultraconservative Society of St. Pius X, which has called the reformed liturgy "evil" and lacking in the spiritual value necessary for the faithful, were excommunicated in the Catholic Church's most significant schism in recent memory. "
"Several prominent prelates capitalized on that moment to call for greater access to celebrate the pre-Vatican Latin Mass. "
"Despite those appeals, the head of the Vatican's liturgy office has stated that the pope will not repeal Francis' 2021 restrictions and wrote in a document to cardinals that the reformed liturgy ought to be the sole form of the Mass in the Latin rite....the pope also maintained that the council's liturgical reform is "firmly rooted in the living tradition of the church."
"Indeed, since the liturgy is a living entity, throughout the centuries it has always been subject to developments and changes," he said. "The magisterium adapted its forms to the needs of different eras. It is therefore not surprising that the Second Vatican Council too, with the utmost respect for the heritage of tradition, and precisely in order to make it more accessible, considered it necessary to revise the liturgical books."
"In January, Leo chose the documents of the Second Vatican Council as the theme for his first catechesis series as pope, stating that the faithful had to familiarize themselves with the council's teaching to "continue to seek ways and means to implement its insights."
I should add that another bone of contention with the traditionalists is the way of receiving Communion. Of course now the standard practice is to go up standing, and to receive either on the hands or on the tongue. The priest, deacon or EMHC says "the Body of Christ" and the response is "Amen". Formerly it was to receive kneeling at the Communion rail. The priest said " Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam. Amen". Which is translated, "May the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul unto life everlasting." The communicant didn't say anything. It was a beautiful prayer, and was arguably more reverent. Except that it was said very fast and most people didn't know what was being said.
ReplyDeleteI’m older than you, Katherine so went to pre- Vatican II masses until I was about 19. Before Vatican 2, communion was kneeling at the rail, on the tongue. I have no idea what the priest muttered when he put it on my tongue— incomprehensible in any language. True of the mass also, especially since he had his back to us when muttering. The changes began my junior year in Catholic college.
ReplyDeleteI truly hated communion on the tongue. I hated sticking out my ugly tongue and I hated his fingers often touching my tongue and I’m sure the priest didn’t like it either. I thought (and still think) that communion on the tongue is both unsanitary and disrespectful, since we kids would stick out our tongues at someone as an insult. If I were the priest I would hate looking at hundreds of nasty tongues every day. The changes to standing was adopted quickly, partly for efficiency.because hundreds of people received communion on a Sunday. Standing dramatically shortened how long it took. I was young so kneeling and standing up again was no problem, but it is now, in my old age if I don’t have a rail or back of a pew to push off on. My knees don’t hurt when I kneel, but I know that those whose joint stiffness and pain are worse than mine find kneeling to be painful. In the pews they can hold on and also sit the bottom on the edge of the pew. I don’t know what people do in worship spaces that only have folding chairs.
Interestingly enough, our EC parish ( one of the oldest churches in Maryland dating back to the 1739) still has communicants kneel at a rail ( far fewer people - maybe a 100 instead of 500+) and we were told to stand if kneeling was difficult or painful. Communion in the hand only and also a shared cup. But they allow intinction also. The priest says “The body of Christ, the bread of heaven” and addresses everyone by name when giving the host, assuming they have been there at least once previously. Both priests at that parish addressed us by name by the second week there at communion and when standing at the door greeting people as they left. Harder to do in enormous RC parishes. RC parishes aren’t as conducive to building community because they are too big. People go to mass, seldom know others there, and most disappear right after mass, sometimes grabbing a doughnut when leaving. Insiders like you and Jim experience community at RC parishes, but most in the pews don’t, if there are more than a couple of hundred people in the congregation .I have read that average participation in RC parish extracurriculars like Sodality or choir includes only about 10% of the whole congregation. Evangelical mega churches have a lot of small groups and family activities during the week so that people get to know each other. Most evangelicals go to church on Sunday and Wednesday at a minimum. No services on Wednesday, but lots of groups and activities.
I know Benedict loved the Latin mass but, personally, I think he made a huge mistake in opening that door again. It has resulted in nothing but division ever since. He should have supported mass in the vernacular. After all, Latin WAS the vernacular throughout the Roman Empire for hundreds of years, even though the conquered territories also retained their native languages. The Romance languages developed from the Latin of course, but some places are trying to revive the original languages. So Ireland uses Irish Gaelic, the signs in Wales were in both English and Welsh when we were there and apparently schools are taught in those languages as well as English. . Our grandchildren in Spain will be taught in Catalan- the original language of Catalonia where Barcelona is. They will also be taught Spanish and English— the Spanish students are required to study English from kindergarten on. The 12 year old’s grades will not be counted for 2 years, but grades will count as in high school. He was a top student here, and he will be a good student in Spain too but the language support is essential to reach that. They have also hired a private tutor at home (who babysits) and teaches both kids in Spanish and Catalan. The 12 year old will be getting 16 hours/week of extra tutoring at school in Catalan and Spanish. I think the 6 year old will also have tutoring at school but I’m guessing she will be fluent by next summer. Imagine the results if public schools here gave immigrant students an extra 16 hours/week of English to support their transition.
DeleteIn agree that Benedict made a mistake in allowing the Tridentine Mass again. That has caused nothing but trouble. If it were really just about Latin, the post Vatican II Mass can be celebrated in Latin, and sometimes that is done in international settings. But the radical traditionalists are not interested in doing that. There really is a rejection of Vatican II.
DeleteI have been around Evangelical churches enough, between relatives and in laws, that I don't want to do things the way they do. Might be appealing to some, but not for me.
The evangelical model doesn’t work for me either. Our EC parish was a comfortable size congregation. Our RC parish for 30 years had 4000 families. The church seated 700 and the popular times were standing room only. Very hard to feel like you were worshipping as a community. It was like attending a concert where there are 700 isolated people who all share a liking for the music but don’t form a community
DeleteI admit that when I am an EMHC it is awkward to give people Communion on the tongue. There are those who prefer it, and we accommodate them. I try to avoid touching anyone's tongue but sometimes it happens. There are some handicapped people in our congregation who don't have the full use of their hands, so they are among the tongue receivers. They are on motorized scooters or wheelchairs, so we go to where they are, usually in the back of church.
DeleteBefore Covid we used to have Communion under both kinds once in awhile. Now it's only on Holy Thursday.
I haven’t been to a Catholic mass ( or EC mass) since Covid so I don’t know what they do here these days. Before Covid communion was both species at every mass, both Catholics and EC. The Catholic parish had mass every day - twice/ day on weekdays and 7 masses every Sunday, including evening masses on Saturday and Sunday, the EC parish used to have 3 liturgies every Sunday and one on Wednesday. Now only one on Sundays, according to the website. The earliest Sunday liturgy wasn’t well attended but the other two were. I think a lot of people never came back after Covid. But looking at their website, it seems the EC parish has been growing every month, mostly young families. They might have to go back to two masses on Sunday at least.
DeleteI checked.the Archdiocese of DC’s guidelines which is are to offer the bread only. Apparently the only two parishes that offer both these days are Holy Trinity in Georgetown (Jesuit) and St Camila’s ( Franciscan). The Episcopal churches, including the Washington National Cathedral, offer both bread and wine but now forbid intinction, which used to be allowed.
DeleteMy parish has been back to both species for a long time. For the wine, one minister serves two lines of people having had received the bread from two ministers. This leads to backup. If I’m at the end of a pew, I receive the wine, otherwise I pass.
ReplyDeleteI was an altar boy from 1958 to 1966. I saw a lot of changes being introduced and liked them all. It was a wonderful time until John Paul II began the big kibosh. I have no time for the fetishization of the Latin Mass. If anything, I consider the Novus Ordo to be closer to the original gathering of the faithful and truly traditional.
Now that we have a full time resident Polish priest, the Mass in Polish is being moved from 2 PM to Noon. Since I usually participate as a collection counter, this will allow me to start attending the Polish Mass, hopefully improving my language skills and saving me a car trip. They display the hymns on the large tv’s so I’ll have a chance to sing some of those hymns to which Katherine refers. I can sound out the words even if I don’t understand them all yet. And the homilies are printed in the bulletin, so I can go over them later even if I don’t catch everything while listening.
I think what's most interesting about that article is Leo's focus, not only on the liturgical reform of Vatican II, but his calling the church to focus on the documents of the 2nd Vatican Council. It seems clear that Leo doesn't see Vatican II as past-tense, but rather that we are still in the era of the receeption and implementation of the Council.
ReplyDeleteIf that's true, then it's probably bad news for the Latin Mass crowd. But it might be equally bad news for Catholic progressives who have been straining to move the church beyond the boundaries of the Council.
Some examples of progressive reforms, that to my mind, aren't aligned to what one finds in the documents of Vatican II:
* Opening ordained ministries to women
* Opening church governance to more democratic decision-making
* "Table sharing" between Catholics and Protestants
As far as more democratic decision making, isn't that an aspect of synodality?
Delete"Opening ordained ministries to women
Delete* Opening church governance to more democratic decision-making
* "Table sharing" between Catholics and Protestants"
All three are needed. Another Council won't happen soon. But at some point in history, the all male celibate hierarchy clinging desperately to their power will have to open themselves to the leadings of the Holy Spirit.
"As far as more democratic decision making, isn't that an aspect of synodality?"
DeleteUnder syndality, I think the bishops still own the decisionmaking. But that should be preceded by listening, dialogue, more listening, accompanying, more listening, praying and more listening.