Recently, when an old friend was visiting the area, I agreed to go to a Traditional Latin Mass with him. While I firmly agree the Pope Benedict's motu propio Summorum Pontificum (2007) which confirmed the licitity a Tridentine Mass, my prior experiences, particularly of Low Masses, had not fed my soul. Alas, this particular Extraordinary Form of the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass also lived up to my Low Mass expectations. So many traditionalists gush about about the Mass of Pope (St.) Pius V. As I appreciate history and I love languages, I am not intimidated by the Usus Antiquior. Moreover, I was prepared to occasionally being lost in the mystery of liturgical worship. With all of that in mind, so many elements of the Missa Privata left me cold.
Granted, I am a child of Vatican II who appreciates worshiping in the vernacular. However, I can see the beauty of centuries of tradition contained in the Traditional Mass. I appreciate the silent reverence of the People of God when inside the sanctuary. This solemnity is also reflected by communicants at the altar rail (made more tolerable by padding at the edge of the marble altar). Yet is seems that the Low Mass in the Extraordinary Form seems to lack the full, conscious and active participation of the faithful which was envisioned from the Vatican II constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium (1963).
“Glad Trads”, like Scott Hahn and Matt Fradd, joyfully embrace the Extraordinary Form of the liturgy. Glad Trads may hope that that elements of the Traditional Mass may make it back into the Novus Ordo (echoing the hopes of Pope emeritus Benedict XVI).
While I am unaccustomed to the practice, I appreciate the ad orientem orientation of the priest celebrant on the altar in the Traditional Latin Mass, as the whole congregation ought to be facing liturgical East when worshiping.
When the third translation of the Roman Missal was promulgated in English speaking countries in 2011, a big deal was made over the linguist change of "I believe" being said during the Nicean Creed in the Ordinary Form of the Mass rather than using a communal voice. In this Low Mass, the Priest definitely said "Credo" but no one else, even my Latin fluent friend, joined in. So much for a personal creed.
There was also communal silence beyond the altar during the Pater Noster, the perfect prayer which Jesus taught His believers to say. The congregation mostly sat there quietly, with some praying a rosary during Mass. Not only is the Lord’s Prayer a unifying prayer throughout Christendom, but if we deeply reflect on its tenants, it challenges our practice of faith. But when the “Our Father” is said sotto voce from a celebrant on the High Altar during a Low Mass, it risks becoming a mere ritual.
These observations highlight the philosophical difference between the Tridentine and Novus Ordo Mass. The Old Form emphasizes humanity's sinfulness and unworthiness save the grace of Christ dying on the Cross at Calvary. The Novus Ordo seems to have a more communal narrative, focusing on the institution of the Eucharist. This re-presentation of the Last Supper feeds the communicant's soul and is made more profound by active participation in the Liturgies of the Mass.
Some Protestants bristle at the Sacrifice of the Mass. They mistakenly believe that Catholics re- crucify our Savior during the Liturgy instead of appreciating that we celebrate the new Passover when Jesus freely gave his Body and Blood during the Last Supper to forgive our sins and nourish the faithful via the Eucharist (i.e. Communion). This is made more evident by emphasizing the Lord's Supper in the Novus Ordo.
Another sticking point for me of the Extraordinary Form was how the Liturgy of the Word is conducted. Traditionalists will suggest that we should be adhering to the original language of Latin, yet the history is a little more complicated. While the Roman Church is steeped in its Latin tradition, the Mass originated in Aramaic and Greek (which was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire until Latin became the language of liturgy). This shows some evolution of worship and proclaiming the Good News in the vernacular. Citing lex orendi, lex credendi, I can appreciate having the ordinary portions of the Traditional Mass being recited in Latin. However, what good is proclaiming scripture in Latin when it has to be repeated in a rushed reading before announcements and the sermon?
At the Low Mass, I missed having the Old Testament proclaimed. In the New Mass, the first reading from the Old Testament reminds us of God's love affair for His people and it usually gives dimension to the Gospel reading with which it is paired. This practice makes typology more evident to those faithful in the pews. Without that connection with the Hebrew Scripture, it misses out on the depth of God's love letter to his "very good" creation and adopted children in scripture. Moreover, it can further the division between followers of "The Way" with God's chosen people fostering an unfortunate lingering veneer anti-Semitism.
During the Easter season, Novus Ordo Masses are blessed with readings from the Acts of the Apostles, to appreciate how the early Church lived out the Good News of Jesus Christ’s sacrificial death, resurrection and ascension. Since there was only the Epistle and the Gospel, an E.F. homily runs the risk of being a quick restatement of the reading or an opportunity for an unrelated doctrinal sermon.
Prior to Vatican II, there was not a three year Lectionary in which the bulk of Salvation history is proclaimed from the ambo, but a non-rotating one year cycle. In the Old Mass, daily mass readings either echoed the prior Sunday or the Saints day or Ember days. I greatly appreciate the liturgical cycle from Vatican II, as we revisit scriptural readings every few years. This cycle of scriptural readings allows an attentive Mass goer an opportunity to listen to a familiar scripture and process it with some life experience or hearing a parable with different emphases rather than tuning out a too familiar yearly text.
My traditionally oriented friend lamented with all of the options for Eucharistic Canons and prayers that it threatens the unity of the Catholic church. Of course, this ignores that Catholicism has 24 particular churches, along with Ordinariates. Even the Roman Catholic church has historically had different rites, some of which remain to this day, such as the Ambrosian in Milan (Italy) the Mozarabic in Toledo (Spain) and the Braga rite in Portugal. In fact, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger cited the Braga rite in 1998 to show that variety in the Latin Church demonstrates that unity does not require liturgical uniformity.
To allay my objections to the laity's passive role in the Traditional Latin Mass, a parable about active participation was proposed. I was asked to consider an atheistic boyfriend being dragged to Mass each week by a pious Catholic girlfriend. After a while, the atheist learns the proper responses (presumably in the vernacular Novus Ordo Mass) and recites them without truly believing them. Then there is Mrs. McGillicuddy, who cannot hear the quietly uttered Extraordinary Form prayers, much less understand them in Latin, but who uses the reverential silence in the Mass to pray the Rosary.
The dialectical question posed from this pious parable is who is actively participating? Parables are succinct didactic stories to illustrate a deeper point, but often they have the effect off making a listener feel uncomfortable as one can sympathize with both viewpoints. A traditionalist is inclined to believe that the active participant is Mrs. McGillicuddy who is reverently praying. Granted, she is piously praying and doing the best that she can. But Mrs. McGillicuddy was praying a personal prayer rather than actively uniting herself to the Liturgy (public worship). On the other hand, the atheistic boyfriend lacks faith but he is participating in the public worship of the Church. Granted, these prayer recitation may remain as a ritual to ingratiate himself to his girlfriend. But this active participation in the liturgy may create an opening for a moment of grace to inspire a metanoia which inspires faith. I have heard enough stories of how the Holy Spirit can break down barriers to those attentive to Catholic Church liturgies, from Satanists (Zachary King) to Presbyterians (Scott Hahn).
Seeking direction from Sacrosantum Conciliam, the laity are extolled to not be silent spectators but they should take part in the sacred action conscious of what they are doing with full devotion and collaboration (para. 48). In fact, in communion the faithful are not just nourished by the hands of the priest in the Eucharist but are urged to offer themselves through Christ our Mediator. This echoes the pious practice of "offering up" your tribulations during the consecration as taught in the Baltimore Catechism. This is hard to do if one can not follow the Liturgy due to language and amplification, thus one opts to use the sacred time to rattle off a rosary.
Traditionalists bristle at the infiltration of Modernism in the Catholic Church. Many look askance at the products of the Second Vatican Council, and champion skeptics like Archbishop LeFavre. But LeFevre voted for all sixteen documents of Vatican II in the mid 1960s, ten years later rejected them in "I Accuse the Council" (1976).
It is understandable to balk at what Bishop Robert Barron calls the Banners and Balloons Beige Catholicism from wild and wooly Catechism of the 1970s (some may compare it to the Rolling Stones compilation album "Sucking in the Seventies").
Then there was the improv license which some priests took from the dynamic translation of the Second Translation of the Roman Missal making them the center of secular attention. The renovations (a.k.a. “wreckifications”) of many churches during this period smacks of Modernism. But these excesses do not negate the "aggionamento" aspirations of Vatican II to encourage full and active participation in the Mass and dialog with the outside world.
Personally, I am happy to see implementation of the Hermaneutic of Continuity in some parishes, in which some portions of the Mass which contain Latin and Greek have been integrated into response that the laity actively participate. When followed, the new Missal abates many of the liturgical abuse associated with the Spirit of Vatican II. In accompanying Catechumens into the Church, I can appreciate how they are drawn to the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist as emphasized through the recapitulation of the Last Supper. Prior to the Coronavirus 19 pandemic, the Church was scandalized by polls showing the dearth of belief by American Catholics in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. As Churches again resume normal liturgy, we will see if the faithful will return to Mass and if they hunger for the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity contained in Communion.
I also welcome Glad Trads who faithfully reverence the Traditional Latin Mass. Even though my several experiences with the Low Mass have been uninspiring, I appreciate the beauty and history of the Missa Cantata. Moreover, the regality of the Papal Traditional Latin Mass is awe inspiring. May they continue to be spiritually nourished in celebrating "The Mass of the Ages".
That being said, I am put off when “Frozen Chosen” proponents of the Traditional Latin Mass deride the Novus Ordo as a "Man Made Mass" or imply that it is inherently inferior. Often they tout the history of the liturgy, which is undeniable. They will allude to the reverence, which is also quite evident. They point to the beauty, which from my perspective can be diminished by a lackluster Low Mass in which the priest silently does everything. What I find it lacking is fully conscious and active participation by all. As a layperson, I lack the faculties to confect the Eucharist, but my baptism makes me part of the ordinary priesthood which should not be effectively sidelined in the Holy Mass, which is considered to be the source and summit of our Faith.
I have found most elements of the Traditional Latin Mass liturgy paired with the vernacular language and active participation by the faithful at Masses in the Anglican Ordinariate, also made possible by Pope Benedict XVI’s moto propio Anglicanorum Coetibus (2009). But it can be hard to find parishes with the Anglican Patrimony which swam the Tiber and rejoined Mother Church.
It is my hope that Catholics can appreciate the faith that unites us in Christ, understand that this religiosity may rightly be expressed in various manners and that we can be strengthened in faith with the plurality of pieties. Not everything which emanated from the Second Vatican Council was bad, though some of the latter documents (1964-65) suffered from the ambiguity of trying to reach 90% consensus. However, not every innovation said to be done in the “Spirit of Vatican II” was good. And it was lamentable how some citing the direction of the “Spirit of Vatican II” unmethodically discarded what they believed were dated liturgical practices and Catholic Culture.
Now that we have had over a half a century to digest implement and reconsider Vatican II, we ought to be able to discern the goods from the pastoral council and reconsider unanticipated liturgical mistakes and excesses. On the one hand, those in authority in the Church ought to quit trying to stifle licit and legitimate traditional forms of the liturgy, and be responsive to some of the younger faithful who are drawn to the reverence of the Traditional Latin Mass. On the other hand, the TLM faithful need to drop the sub rosa Liturgy War superciliousness and chauvinism which are premised on the notion that their form of liturgy is the only right rite. No doubt that some “innovations” seem ill advised or perhaps even heterodoxical. But we should appreciate that much like differences in the Gospel or the practice of our many rites, the form may be slightly different as it highlights different aspects of our one true Catholic faith.
