Palm Sunday Usus Antiquior Style 2023

 As there is an embarrassment of riches in worshipping in the America's capital city, I often explore interesting liturgies during Holy Week which are not my common round.

With the promulgation of Pope Francis' moto propio:  Traditionis Custodes (2021) and further restrictions on the pre-1962 Mass imposed by Cardinal Roche at the Congregation for Divine Worship, I felt compelled to attend the Palm Sunday Mass in the Usus Antinquior at the Franciscan Monastery in Washington DC before proponents of the "Spirit of Vatican II" entirely quash the Mass of the Ages.

It is curious how uninformed much of the laity is about the Liturgy Wars, even as it heats up.   Just before Passion Week, I was sharing my plans with some theology graduate students at Catholic University.  Of course they were aware that the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) was celebrated in Latin but seemed fuzzy about the differences in lectionary, vestments and gesticulations which makes the Mass of Pope John XXIII and its Tridentine predecessors so distinct.   However, even proponents of the TLM seemed unaware of how restricted is the celebration of what Pope Benedict XVI dubbed "the  extraordinary form" in his moto propio: "Summorum Pontificum"  (2007).   Moreover, several with traditional pious preferences did not know other local locations of the Traditional Latin Mass. 

The TLM Palm Sunday Mass needed to be started almost an hour earlier than normal due to the length of the liturgy and the tight timeline allotted for traditional worship at the shrine.   The procession took place on a sunny but brisk morning with gusts of strong winds, but that did not deter the people of God from memorializing Jesus' triumphant entrance into Jerusalem as the messianic Son of David.  Hosanna!-- Pray, save us! 

One of the rituals to which I was unaccustomed was how the presiding priest used the processional cross to knock three times on the church doors before it was opened.  This gesture had a strong impact on me, as I recently learned from Fr. Mitch Pacwa's   Ecce Homo lecture that when traveled from Bethany to Jerusalem in his triumphant entry into the Holy City, he took an extent bridge from the Mount of Olives to the Temple and tradition has it that he preached from several days.   Thus a humble itinerant preacher who was not a priest and raised the ire of the Sanhedrin proverbially busts into the Temple and proclaims the Kingdom of God. 

Another thing that I noted is the changes in vestments and adornments during the TLM Palm Sunday.  The presiding priest switched from a scarlet chasuble for the entry into Jerusalem into a penitential Lenten purple vestment during most of the TLM liturgy, except during the chanting of the Matthean Passion Gospel, in which he was stripped to his white alb. I also noted that between the start of the procession to the altar, the processional and altar crucifixes were clad in purple. 

This "Extraordinary Form" Latin Palm Sunday Missa Cantata had many participants.   The schola  consisted of twelve singers.  There were at least fourteen altar servers, most of whom seemed like seminarians. Several additional priests assisted in the proclamation of the Passion narrative. With an ensemble that large, it was vital that one of the seminarian altar servers acted as a silent Master of Ceremony with a commanding clap noting when to kneel.    At times, I was so close to the action that I could hear an acolyte holding the edge of the celebrant's vestment tell him when to turn.  Also due to my positioning, I was directly behind the thurifer, hence some snapshots with rising smoke.

As I neither have a pre-1962 missal nor do I prefer to read the Mass, I reveled in the mystery evoked during the liturgy.  I had already heard the Novus Ordo readings for Palm Sunday and my less than proficient Latin could pick out keywords to discern where we were in the liturgy. 

Being s a Vatican II baby, my instinct is to interpret the "full and active participation" in the Mass as called for in Sacrosanctum Concilium (1963)  as listening attentively and vocalizing liturgical responses.  Earlier in the year, Monsignor Pope made a poignant point that proclaiming scripture in "dead languages" like Latin is not meaningless. as it gives due to the Lord in worship using a sacred language.  If one take one's faith seriously and prepares for the "'Sunday Obligation", this foreign sounding proclamation may offer unexpected insight through its reverence and beauty.   

As I could not do my usual active vocal participation, I was moved to align my frail human gifts with the Lord's during the Eucharistic prayers and was felt profoundly moved.  The reverence and relative silence is a rarity in our overstimulated culture.  Moreover   singing melodies from the St. Louis Jesuits sometimes harkens to faded glory of the 1960s rather than the majesty of scripture filled motets composed in the 1560s.

The church was about 90 percent full.   Most were formally dressed. Many (but not all) women wore chapel veils.  There were a fair number of small children present, dressed nicely without portable snack bowls or need for a cry room. All partaking in the Eucharist received it kneeling on the tongue.  Many attendees remained after Mass for post liturgical thanksgiving prayers.   Pope Benedict XVI predicted that the contemporary church may become smaller but more intentional and devote. These are the faithful who should be supported to that end. 

Indubitably, this was a long two hour liturgy.  The suit and tie attire for worship generally is not my style.   My preference is not to need to rely on a missal when I worship at Mass.  That being said, I do not understand the harshness during this pontificate for the faithful who prefer the Traditional Latin Mass. They are not sede vacantists  who deny the legitimacy of sitting Pontiffs.  They do attend Novus Ordo liturgies also but prefer the Mass of the Ages.  They are well catechized.  And the demographics skew younger, with many young families with several children, unlike the Rock of the Ageds guitar masses at many Novus Ordo parishes.   

This pontificate professes to give more local autonomy and "synodality".  Alas, the Synod of the Amazons (2019)  has brought the scandal or Pachamama as well as recently approved Mayan rite messes Masses with purely pagan elements.  And the German Synodal Way is instituting heterodox Catholic practices.  Yet the one group that does not experience synodality are traditionally worshipping Catholics.  

Again, I feel fortunate living in an urban area with many Catholic churches-- some of which strive to have reverent liturgy, including a few licit Mass of the Ages.  I suspect that soon the latter option will be further suppressed.  I wish that I could understand why.  

Contrasting Low Mass Expectations with Aggiornamento Aspirations

 

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).

Radical Traditionalists (“Rad Trads”) will insist that only the Old Mass is legitimate and ought no be changed.  This is echoed in the motto Semper Idem (“Always the Same”)  of Cardinal Ottaviani, a leading proponent of the Usus Antiquior during Vatican II. Such a train of thought convicts some like the Priestly Society of Pius X (SSPX), to reject all of Vatican II.  This leads some to to adhere to sedevacantism (believing that the Chair of St. Peter has been empty since 1958).  “Mad Trads” still have papal  allegiance  but chauvinistically believe that the 1962 Mass  is superior worshiping than the 1969 Novus Ordo Mass of Pope (St.)  Paul VI.   

“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). 

Alas,  that seems unlikely given the recent row at the Vatican prohibiting side altar Masses at St. Peter’s Basilica.  This questionably issued procedure relegates the Traditional Latin Mass to the intimate grotto St. Clementine Chapel.  Many appreciate this move as another example of the ever simmering Liturgy Wars which seems to suppress the licit Extraordinary Form which is skeptical about the patrimony of so called “Mass of the Ages”.  More poignantly, Fr. Tom Reese recently suggested that young people should be prohibited from attending the Traditional Latin Mass. 

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.  

But the brief gestures towards the congregation of "Oremus" struck me as pro forma and almost gratuitous as he recited the Divine Liturgy.  For me, as the old Low Mass progressed, the silence became deafening.  It seems logical that the cleric would lead on the propers portion of worship, but there seemed to be no opportunity for the congregation to participate in prayers at a Low Mass, aside from the Agnus Dei and the prayer of Divine Access ("Lord I am not worthy").   The faithful recited more prayers verbally at the foot of the altar after mass ended than during the actual liturgy. 

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).

Later in 1981 LeFevre accepted Vatican II in the light of tradition and then recanted.  LeFebvre was not exactly a rock of faith, but he  was a bishop that  prized the faith and tradition of the old Latin Mass. Thus LeFevre  had concerns with the implementation in the Spirit of Vatican II, which often barred little resemblance to the documents of the Council.

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.

On Pope Francis on Pre-Mass Silence and Lex Vivendi

Recently, Pope Francis lamented the tendency of Catholics to engage in small talk before Mass when they ought to be spiritually preparing for the liturgy.

This may be related to how the Mass is considered by the faithful.  The Council of Trent affirmed the holy sacrifice of the Mass.  The spirit of Vatican II considers it a family meal, thus what would be wrong with some pre-supper conversation?

While it is laudable to have pre-liturgical silence to encourage the People of God to prepare for the Liturgies of the Word and the Eucharist, it should be tempered by fostering community.

It is my experience that at least in America, parishes are no longer the tightly knit and stable discreet communities that they once were.  Folks typically move around.  There are volitional parishes where people choose to attend.  People often do not make a day of worship, sticking around for coffee or pot luck.

The infrastructure can also be an issue.  My parish's main church was built in the 1850s and has a very small narthex, so there is not a courtyard for people to gather and make small talk before going into the sanctuary.  Many modern churches have incorporated a gathering area for such purposes.

So what would be the best way to cultivate more reverence prior to Mass?  I would suggest catechesis and clues.

While I want thoughtful exegesis from a homily, it can sometimes be edifying to also have some instruction.  I regret that I did not hear more priestly presiders educate the faithful about the change from dynamic translation to static translation of the new Roman Missal in 2011.  I sought to educate myself and attended some additional talks which helped me understand the logic of the syntax changes as well as to become accustomed to the "clunky" new sound.

Pope Benedict XVI observed that the essence of liturgy disappears when we applaud in church and it becomes religious entertainment.  While the Mass that I frequently attend has a wonderful contemporary choir,  it still garners applause "from the crowd" after Mass.  Being shepherded by our Holy Father, I curbed my enthusiasm for post-prandial celebration.  It would have been instructive if clergy discerned if such a critique was praiseworthy and shared it with their flock.

Another moment where reverence not revelry ought to be instructed is during the "sign of peace". In some liturgies, it becomes a "half time" where people will briefly socialize with their neighbors.  Some celebrants campaign, needing to shake the hand of every Catholic "constituent".    Liturgically, we are sharing the unity coming from the altar after the fraction rite that comes sharing one body of Christ. So several years ago, the Congregation for the Divine Worship  published a piece which discouraged irrational exuberance during the sign of peace.  Yet this instruction received nary a mention from the pulpit.

One parish which I attend while visiting relatives has a barn-like sanctuary.  Several minutes before they start they dim the lights to get the People of God in the mood. Visually, they are giving them a clue.  Where I believe that they go off the right path in making announcements or having brief secular speakers come up front "before the show". 

For me, good liturgy is key.  However, community is also important.  There is probably not a one-size-fits-all approach.  But pastors and sacristans can discern what will work best for their "faith community".  And homilists ought not to be afraid to challenge their congregation to  prayerfully consider how we comport ourselves in the sanctuary before, during and after our liturgies.  And may the clergy not dismiss righteous chaffing from the faithful just because they are in charge. 

On Re-Orienting Vatican II Catholics' Divine Worship

Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship Cardinal Robert Sarah's strong defense of ad orientem worship is no surprise.  However, Cardinal Sarah suggestion at the Sacra Liturgia Conference in London to push to re-orient Vatican II Catholics posture away from versus populum positioning during the Liturgy of the Eucharist by the beginning of Advent 2016 was shocking. The announcement was greeted by prolonged applause at the Conference, indicating that the mostly clerical audience was behind the move.

It took over a decade for ICEL and the USCCB to implement the Third Translation of the Roman Missal (which supplanted a dynamic translation of the Mass with a fixed translation), but this major change was accompanied with a year's worth of educating the People of God.  While the symbolism of reorienting most Novus Ordo Masses to the traditional ad orientem orientation may be praiseworthy, this may be a hard teaching, particularly for more progressive parishes that have taught that the Mass is a celebration of a sacred family meal. 

If Cardinal Sarah's modest proposal does come into fruition, it may challenge many casual "spirit of Vatican II" Catholics approach to Divine Worship.  It would be ironic that such contemporary Catholics, who have reveled in this progressive tact of Pope Francis' reign, may feel desolation with what may be considered a traditionalist retrenchment by Pope Francis' choice for Prefect of the CDW.

Before an Ad Orientem rubric is implemented, it is crucial for Catholics to understand why this has been the traditional posture of Divine Worship and to disabuse the faithful of any misconceptions about the change in optional practice of  versus populum worship.

Post Scriptus 07/11/16:

It seems that CDW Prefect Cardinal Sarah's "Modest Proposal" on Mass orientation has been countermanded by the Vatican

On Reconsidering Liturgy

America, the Jesuit magazine, published an interview with Cardinal Francis George as he prepares to cede pastoral responsibilities for the Archdiocese of Chicago to current Spokane Archbishop Blaise Cupich. The  wide ranging interview touched upon secular hot button political issues, sacerdotal celibacy, clerical sexual abuse and the recent Synod of the Family.  

But Cardinal George's comments about Liturgy have particular as the third anniversary of the implementation of the New (Third) Translation of the Roman Missal approaches. Some priests formed "in the spirit of Vatican II" persist in improvising during the Liturgy or revert to favorite older translations.  

As one of the prominent people in the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL), Cardinal Francis George's comments deserve consideration.  Cardinal George does concede that some things can sound "clunky" but can be facilitated by preparation to understand the grammar and intention of the prayers.

Recently, I participated in an challenging colloquy with a cleric who was contemptuous that the 1998 ICEL translation was rejected and who still feels liberated to say: "The Lord IS with you" in antiphons.  I noted that the loosey goosey improv impulse which was allowed under the 1969  Comme le prévoit  was illicit under the new translation. His retort was the aspiration to make liturgy accessible to the youthful masses. That seemed like a jesuitical argument as all Christian denominations have bled worshipers and vocations.  Yet diocese which have more traditional inclinations (e.g. Peoria IL, Lincoln NB, Steubensville OH) seem to be the most vocation rich.  Might there be a correlation? 

One of the pities about the implementation of Vatican II is that the works of the Council were overtaken by "the spirit of Vatican II" which fundamentally misunderstands the Council Fathers work.  Sacrosanctum Concilium (1963), the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy, had the expectation that priests would educate the faithful. However, according to Fr. Gabriel O'Donnell, O.P. who co-authored “Spiritual Traditions for the Contemporary Church”, priests were not properly formed in the new liturgy before it was implemented to the laity.  The logic of  Comme le prévoit  gave great latitude to presiding liturgists.  Thus US Catholics misunderstood Sacrosanctum Concilium as a capitulation to modernity instead of the  "aggorionmento" ("bringing up to date) which Pope St. John XXIII intended when he called for the Council  in 1959.

It would behoove Catholics to become more educated about first things --not just what we do, but why we do them in the Liturgy.  The Liturgy along with Sacred Scripture are the primary means of how we experience Christ.  Our lack of learning on liturgy loses lackluster Catholics and makes mass or mechanical or risks relegation to religious entertainment.

Benedict XVI on Liturgy

Pope Paul VI on Liturgy