Very well stated. That “carnival” state, when the new Mass was first introduced, caused me to leave the church for a long while. I still see it in Novus Ordo Masses - even those considered reverent. The entire structure is unreliable and always subject to change. It could be simply a raucous or enthusiastic rendition by the choir of some awful modern composition that ruins everything. I recall watching 2 young girls in front of me jumping up and down on the kneelers because they were so physically roused by the music. That’s the opposite of what we desire in the holy Mass. These kinds of things are all outward and tied to emotion, rather than devotion. You mentioned also the various Eucharistic ministers too. A Huge mistake on so many levels! Whenever I have the chance to attend the Vetus Ordo, I breathe a sigh of relief because I know what to expect. It’s always the same and that allows peace and depth of attention. I know I will not be jarred out of my mind by so many distractions and spiritual and psychological stress, if you could call it that. The old Mass is like a solid rock surrounded by swift rapids. It’s there to save me.
I remember a hideous NO Mass setting that was reminiscent of of an actual merry-go-round. Whatever joy one might feel in proclaiming the Creed certainly doesn't translate to the 'Holy, Holy, Holy' or 'Lamb of God'--but there we were, asked to incongruously apply the same rousing tune at the height of the Sacrifice. John 11:35 comes to mind.
Years ago, while living in RI, I was asked for a variety of reasons to host Alice vonHildebrand at my home. She was invited (by Anthony Esolen, still there at the time) to give a talk at Providence College. [I'm happy to say that the hall for her talk was filled to capacity.] My point is that I took her to Holy Mass that morning at my local [unicorn] parish, where I was gratified for the opportunity to show her how beautiful a NO Mass could be. I was perplexed that she looked at very little (and may not have heard much either). Although a perfectly gracious guest in all things, she kept her head down and said nothing. Nothing at all.
Only now do I understand the difference between the rites, and how nothing--be it the reverent silence, the careful gestures on the altar, or the faith-filled movements for the reception of Holy Communion--could have made up for the paucity of the Mass itself. . And only now I wonder if she has helped to pray me away from my sober carnivale and into the Mass of the Ages.
A lot of people don't realize - although now, at least the approx. 150K who have watched my Pints with Aquinas podcast do - that I was working for DECADES in unicorn land. I had practically everything you could ask for in that regard. And... the thing was still broken. Still impoverished. Still modular, rationalistic, plodding, and still a battle zone with every new chaplain or administrator. It got so wearying. And the contrast with the old rite, truly a rite, venerable, articulate, mystical, rubrically exact, loomed larger and larger.
I remember one Lent at that parish, hearing the plaintive Parce Domine sung beautifully from the loft, and my ears perked up--What was that?! Why had I never heard it before? What did it mean? Those are the hidden treasures that shine of their own accord and belong in the setting for which they were written.
As you point out here once again there are innumerable problems baked into the Novus Ordo, that is, not just in its execution, but in its design. Agreed. And yet for the great mass of Catholics, it is familiar, and all they know. And being modern, there is a prejudice that newer is better. Or that the church couldn’t have made such a colossal mistake, no matter how bitter the fruits of fifty years of collapsing vocations and parishes and all the rest. And the hierarchy seems adjusted to the decline and mostly unwilling to undo the damage.
I’ve been thinking lots about diminished capacity. I had one cataract done. My husband has Alzheimer’s. I’ve known people who drive drunk. It seems our mind is able to muddle on despite varied diminishments, to the point of harm. But this is adaptive. If our brain shut down completely at the first imperfection we couldn’t survive. Maybe this sheds light on the corruption of the Mass and the church.
Which brings me to your interview on Pints with Aquinas. That was fantastic. When asked if you would take away the NO you said no. You would favor a more organic restoration.
I agree with your analysis. People can indeed work with diminished capacities. But surely we can hope and pray for better from a worldwide episcopacy of over 5,000 bishops? You'd think that somehow in numbers there would be more strength, but their faults seem to reinforce one another's. I do think that generational shifts will have a positive effect in the coming decades, as "fresh blood" comes into the situation and reevaluates it more realistically. There is also the "pendulum swing" phenomenon of history...
Thanks. I'm humbled to see that the PWA interview has now about 150K views. It has reached many minds and hearts. May the Holy Spirit use it to move the needle.
Indeed, a friend of mine once said the Euthyphro offers the perfect argumentative framework for a discussion of the papacy, in this way:
“Is something true/good/beautiful because the pope authoritatively declares it to be such; or does the pope authoritatively declare it to be such because it is already such and capable of being known to be true?” This is an ecclesiastical variation on the Euthyphro dilemma: Is something pious because God wills it, or does God will it because it is pious?
Everything you've been saying is confirmed in the preconciliar speeches. It was interesting to hear the Pope recently mention the comparison of "tradition and novelty" in regard to the Mass. When Fr. Pablo mentioned in his homily on Saturday, claricalism, that as well was severely evident in the preconciliar speeches. They blamed the people for the selfish changes they pushed. One Bishop from the US tried to shut down their arguments by noting that the laity follow along just fine when they use the missals, obviously a fact, but there were clearly other motives. Not wanting to suffer the people to their own prayers, and save them from their ignorance, was a ruse.
If more people would read the speeches and documents, I really believe that this would be blown out of the water, and nobody could deny that mistakes (speaking charitably) were made, and need to be remedied.
"What is the best way to describe the inherent contradiction between the old and new rites?"
I would say more simply: many of the changes to the Holy Mass that invariably accompanied the Protestant "reformation"/revolution -- though unambiguously condemned during the Council of Trent -- were embraced by the Post-Conciliar Church.
Although I don't necessarily object to the overall sentiment here, let me play the devil's advocate, as it were, and say: Not quite. The argument as stated here, I suggest, confuses substance and accidents.
The fundamental substance of a rite, in the most broad and holistic sense, would be "symbolic action that unites a participant with the spiritual," with an emphasis on "participation." The highest form of rite, then, would be communion with Almighty God. The question, then, is not "is this a rite?" but to what—or WHOM—is the participant united?
Consider that the stage plays St. Augustine so objected to were, in effect, rites that bound the participants to fallen angels. By such a broad definition, rock concerts, to some degree or other, are rites—although I'm not sure what spirit they are of.
By this broad definition, the NO is most definitely a rite, and its architects engineered it, as I understand it, to address in part the question (valid or no) of participation. Whether it is effective or not is another question.
The accidents you describe that are attributed to the traditional rite, then, are not inherent to its status as rite per se but characteristics that, I would argue, better effect the participants' communion with the Most High. A slipshod enactment of the traditional rite would be just as inhibiting to that communion as a "lesser" rite, but it would be no less a rite per se.
Thought-provoking read, but not sure the premises, as stated, are entirely solid. Thank you.
I think your definition of rite is too "30,000-foot." A rock concert has elements of ritual in it, but it's not a rite. A sports event has elements of ritual, but it's not a rite. A rite has to be defined more precisely as a certain kind of religious ceremony in which definite, hallowed formulas are uttered with definite, hallowed acts, received and not subject to arbitrary change. This is why a sacral language always develops for a religion.
Fair point—would depend on how "rite" is defined. I suggest there's a bit of too-convenient "No True Scotsman," however, to the above argument, which sidesteps some of the thornier problems a broader definition would raise. Indeed, I would argue there are many rituals, then—indeed, they are Legion, as it were, and require discernment to ascertain whether they are holy or wholly other than.
That said, the idea of a Carnivale-esque mass is odious, and thanks be to God I have not experienced such, in my admittedly limited exposure. Cheers.
Very well stated. That “carnival” state, when the new Mass was first introduced, caused me to leave the church for a long while. I still see it in Novus Ordo Masses - even those considered reverent. The entire structure is unreliable and always subject to change. It could be simply a raucous or enthusiastic rendition by the choir of some awful modern composition that ruins everything. I recall watching 2 young girls in front of me jumping up and down on the kneelers because they were so physically roused by the music. That’s the opposite of what we desire in the holy Mass. These kinds of things are all outward and tied to emotion, rather than devotion. You mentioned also the various Eucharistic ministers too. A Huge mistake on so many levels! Whenever I have the chance to attend the Vetus Ordo, I breathe a sigh of relief because I know what to expect. It’s always the same and that allows peace and depth of attention. I know I will not be jarred out of my mind by so many distractions and spiritual and psychological stress, if you could call it that. The old Mass is like a solid rock surrounded by swift rapids. It’s there to save me.
I remember a hideous NO Mass setting that was reminiscent of of an actual merry-go-round. Whatever joy one might feel in proclaiming the Creed certainly doesn't translate to the 'Holy, Holy, Holy' or 'Lamb of God'--but there we were, asked to incongruously apply the same rousing tune at the height of the Sacrifice. John 11:35 comes to mind.
Years ago, while living in RI, I was asked for a variety of reasons to host Alice vonHildebrand at my home. She was invited (by Anthony Esolen, still there at the time) to give a talk at Providence College. [I'm happy to say that the hall for her talk was filled to capacity.] My point is that I took her to Holy Mass that morning at my local [unicorn] parish, where I was gratified for the opportunity to show her how beautiful a NO Mass could be. I was perplexed that she looked at very little (and may not have heard much either). Although a perfectly gracious guest in all things, she kept her head down and said nothing. Nothing at all.
Only now do I understand the difference between the rites, and how nothing--be it the reverent silence, the careful gestures on the altar, or the faith-filled movements for the reception of Holy Communion--could have made up for the paucity of the Mass itself. . And only now I wonder if she has helped to pray me away from my sober carnivale and into the Mass of the Ages.
What a remarkable story!
A lot of people don't realize - although now, at least the approx. 150K who have watched my Pints with Aquinas podcast do - that I was working for DECADES in unicorn land. I had practically everything you could ask for in that regard. And... the thing was still broken. Still impoverished. Still modular, rationalistic, plodding, and still a battle zone with every new chaplain or administrator. It got so wearying. And the contrast with the old rite, truly a rite, venerable, articulate, mystical, rubrically exact, loomed larger and larger.
I remember one Lent at that parish, hearing the plaintive Parce Domine sung beautifully from the loft, and my ears perked up--What was that?! Why had I never heard it before? What did it mean? Those are the hidden treasures that shine of their own accord and belong in the setting for which they were written.
As you point out here once again there are innumerable problems baked into the Novus Ordo, that is, not just in its execution, but in its design. Agreed. And yet for the great mass of Catholics, it is familiar, and all they know. And being modern, there is a prejudice that newer is better. Or that the church couldn’t have made such a colossal mistake, no matter how bitter the fruits of fifty years of collapsing vocations and parishes and all the rest. And the hierarchy seems adjusted to the decline and mostly unwilling to undo the damage.
I’ve been thinking lots about diminished capacity. I had one cataract done. My husband has Alzheimer’s. I’ve known people who drive drunk. It seems our mind is able to muddle on despite varied diminishments, to the point of harm. But this is adaptive. If our brain shut down completely at the first imperfection we couldn’t survive. Maybe this sheds light on the corruption of the Mass and the church.
Which brings me to your interview on Pints with Aquinas. That was fantastic. When asked if you would take away the NO you said no. You would favor a more organic restoration.
I agree with your analysis. People can indeed work with diminished capacities. But surely we can hope and pray for better from a worldwide episcopacy of over 5,000 bishops? You'd think that somehow in numbers there would be more strength, but their faults seem to reinforce one another's. I do think that generational shifts will have a positive effect in the coming decades, as "fresh blood" comes into the situation and reevaluates it more realistically. There is also the "pendulum swing" phenomenon of history...
Yes, we must hope and pray and work for better.
I was blessed to have the surgical removal of the cataract. And Alzheimer’s is irreversible. Alcoholism is reversible through abstinence.
The changes you are pointing to are hopeful, and point toward healing of the rupture.
Our hope is for nothing less than life from the dead in Christ through the intercession of His Immaculate Mother.
Again I can’t say enough good about the PWA interview which surely will change hearts and open some minds. God bless you.
Thanks. I'm humbled to see that the PWA interview has now about 150K views. It has reached many minds and hearts. May the Holy Spirit use it to move the needle.
This seems like a perfect piece to use in conjunction with a discussion of Plato's "Euthyphro" and what is and is not holy.
Yes!
Indeed, a friend of mine once said the Euthyphro offers the perfect argumentative framework for a discussion of the papacy, in this way:
“Is something true/good/beautiful because the pope authoritatively declares it to be such; or does the pope authoritatively declare it to be such because it is already such and capable of being known to be true?” This is an ecclesiastical variation on the Euthyphro dilemma: Is something pious because God wills it, or does God will it because it is pious?
On another note, is it just a coincidence that Novus Ordo and Novus Ordo Seclorum seem so closely aligned? Has someone written on this?
Oh yes, many people have commented on the striking coincidence.
Excellent consideration as the joyful carni vale approaches right after Martinmas!
Yes! A liturgy and a whole rhythm of life to which modernity is always covertly and often overtly hostile.
Everything you've been saying is confirmed in the preconciliar speeches. It was interesting to hear the Pope recently mention the comparison of "tradition and novelty" in regard to the Mass. When Fr. Pablo mentioned in his homily on Saturday, claricalism, that as well was severely evident in the preconciliar speeches. They blamed the people for the selfish changes they pushed. One Bishop from the US tried to shut down their arguments by noting that the laity follow along just fine when they use the missals, obviously a fact, but there were clearly other motives. Not wanting to suffer the people to their own prayers, and save them from their ignorance, was a ruse.
If more people would read the speeches and documents, I really believe that this would be blown out of the water, and nobody could deny that mistakes (speaking charitably) were made, and need to be remedied.
I appreciate this article! I suppose I have long described this distinction with the term “a-religious” as opposed to “anti-ritual”.
“Religious” here defined as a virtue.
Yes, I think this is a way to say the same thing, since the virtue of religion has to do with acts of reverence and cult.
"What is the best way to describe the inherent contradiction between the old and new rites?"
I would say more simply: many of the changes to the Holy Mass that invariably accompanied the Protestant "reformation"/revolution -- though unambiguously condemned during the Council of Trent -- were embraced by the Post-Conciliar Church.
Your description is true, but historical. I am attempting to analyze them as phenomena that present themselves to the gaze of a participant.
Although I don't necessarily object to the overall sentiment here, let me play the devil's advocate, as it were, and say: Not quite. The argument as stated here, I suggest, confuses substance and accidents.
The fundamental substance of a rite, in the most broad and holistic sense, would be "symbolic action that unites a participant with the spiritual," with an emphasis on "participation." The highest form of rite, then, would be communion with Almighty God. The question, then, is not "is this a rite?" but to what—or WHOM—is the participant united?
Consider that the stage plays St. Augustine so objected to were, in effect, rites that bound the participants to fallen angels. By such a broad definition, rock concerts, to some degree or other, are rites—although I'm not sure what spirit they are of.
By this broad definition, the NO is most definitely a rite, and its architects engineered it, as I understand it, to address in part the question (valid or no) of participation. Whether it is effective or not is another question.
The accidents you describe that are attributed to the traditional rite, then, are not inherent to its status as rite per se but characteristics that, I would argue, better effect the participants' communion with the Most High. A slipshod enactment of the traditional rite would be just as inhibiting to that communion as a "lesser" rite, but it would be no less a rite per se.
Thought-provoking read, but not sure the premises, as stated, are entirely solid. Thank you.
I think your definition of rite is too "30,000-foot." A rock concert has elements of ritual in it, but it's not a rite. A sports event has elements of ritual, but it's not a rite. A rite has to be defined more precisely as a certain kind of religious ceremony in which definite, hallowed formulas are uttered with definite, hallowed acts, received and not subject to arbitrary change. This is why a sacral language always develops for a religion.
Fair point—would depend on how "rite" is defined. I suggest there's a bit of too-convenient "No True Scotsman," however, to the above argument, which sidesteps some of the thornier problems a broader definition would raise. Indeed, I would argue there are many rituals, then—indeed, they are Legion, as it were, and require discernment to ascertain whether they are holy or wholly other than.
That said, the idea of a Carnivale-esque mass is odious, and thanks be to God I have not experienced such, in my admittedly limited exposure. Cheers.
I appreciate Gomez Davila very much, but these particular aphorisms of his are garbage unworthy of his best insights.