Cognitive Dissonance and the New Mass

Hey, Tim Jones, here (not Jimmy Akin). I became a Catholic in 1993. In looking at the history of Christianity (with a lot of help) I became convinced that the Catholic Church constituted the authentic Church that Christ founded. On any reasonable, unbiased view of the evidence, it emerged as the great trunk from which every branch of Christianity sprung, if any Church could make that claim.

I think that my joining the ancient Church has only deepened my appreciation for old things in general. I've always been fascinated with old things, and found great satisfaction in working for a couple of historical museums and even illustrating an archaeological textbook. I have been privileged to handle and examine many man-made artifacts thousands of years old. One of the most damning marks of our present culture, from where I sit, is the tendency - or the reckless mania - for tossing out things of great (or at least unknown) value, simply because they are old. I'm all for looking at both tools and traditions to see whether they are still truly helpful or could be improved on, but our Western culture discards old ideas and structures with all the thoughtful consideration of a drunk tossing empty beer cans out the car window.

In short, I'm a traditionalist by nature and temperament, and it troubles me to see - in the Church or in the secular world - people so giddily enamored of novelty and "progress" that they lose almost completely the capacity to see the value of old things. For this reason, I have a great deal of natural sympathy for those who lived through the liturgical changes after Vatican II and found them deeply disturbing. I often hear in their communications a deep sense of mourning, pain and bewilderment behind all the anger and bitterness.

Imagine, having been raised with the old Latin Mass, going to your parish church one day and - with very little explanation - experiencing the equivalent of the average modern teen mass. For many people, this would be like entering a parallel universe, or some kind of Twilight Zone episode..."Where are the old Latin prayers and responses? Why is the priest facing the wrong way? Where are the hymns? Why is that guitar-strumming folk singer wailing at us? How did those drums get in here? Make them stop! I can't breathe!! What's going on?!?"

Then, imagine your response when you hear, "You're at Mass. This is the Mass... the NEW Mass. This will be how we do Mass from now on, for ever and ever..."

"But," you might ask,  "what about the Old Mass? Can't I go to the Old Mass?".

And that's the kicker. I doubt, really, that most of these "Rad-Trad" folks would have had that big a problem with the mere existence of the Novus Ordo mass, had the Old Mass been allowed to continue alongside it. The problem - perhaps - wasn't so much the introduction of the New Mass as the fact that the beloved Old Mass was, for all practical purposes, swept away to make room for it. If those strongly attached to the TLM still had access to such a mass in their own parish (or nearby) I doubt we would see the level of anger and the veiled - or explicit - charges that the Novus Ordo is invalid and a tool of the devil.

There is a good, short Wikipedia article on the subject of Cognitive Dissonance that I think might help shed some light on the stridency and outrage of the Rad-Trads. The article begins with this short definition;

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term which describes the uncomfortable tension that comes from holding two conflicting thoughts at the same time, or from engaging in behavior that conflicts with one's beliefs. More precisely, it is the perception of incompatibility between two cognitions, where "cognition" is defined as any element of knowledge, including attitude, emotion, belief, or behavior.

On the one hand, you have the thought (based on your own experience), "This is not the Mass", and on the other hand, you have the Church telling you "This is the Mass". But, the thought is too much, and just won't fit into your mind.

You think, "No, that can't be right", but there is the conflicting thought, "The Church - the Pope - speaks for Christ". While some are able - with time - to sort through these seeming contradictions, others are overwhelmed and something has to give. People just can't go on thinking in one way and acting in another.

I've never experienced this uncomfortable dissonance, because I didn't grow up attached to a particular kind of Mass. I became a Catholic for doctrinal and philosophical reasons and decided to convert before I had ever been to a Catholic mass. I was absolutely convinced of the authority of the Church, and for me it was a slam-dunk that The Mass was whatever the Church said it was. As Mark Shea put it recently, "Just give me my lines and my blocking". I don't know exactly who gets to decide what goes into the liturgy and what doesn't, I only know it isn't me.  All the same, it's my understanding that Benedict XVI may be of the opinion that the liturgical changes that took place after Second Vatican Council were too much, too soon. This does not mean the Church has gone apostate, or even that the Novus Ordo was a bad idea, only that as a matter of prudence, there may have been too many changes and that these changes could have been implemented in a less ham-fisted way.

I understand the feelings of the liturgical purists, but they make enemies when they go around hinting, or flatly stating, that the Novus Ordo is invalid and that the Pope and the Church are in apostasy (except for their little corner of it, where the True Faith is preserved).  What is needed is a bit of humility and charity on both ends. We need to try and understand the deep feelings of loss and disorientation that some experienced after the New Mass was so abruptly introduced, and they need to understand that the Latin Mass was no more immune to abuse than is the Novus Ordo. There were slovenly, irreverent Masses long before Vatican II.

Hopefully, some day soon, we will get to see the Latin Mass made available to a much greater degree, and maybe then we can leave behind some of this territorial chest-pounding and controversies over the How of the mass and focus instead on Who it is we encounter there.

Just a note; I will assertively implement Jimmy's combox rules on this thread. Diatribes, harangues and tub-thumping of any kind will be mercilessly excised. I will suffer no attacks on the Holy Father, nor any laundry lists of perceived evidence that Vatican II was the work of Satan. The same goes for those who accuse all TLM enthusiasts of being schismatics. For once, let's try to talk about this without consigning to the pits of heck those who hold a different view.

Comments

And that's the kicker. I doubt, really, that most of these "Rad-Trad" folks would have had that big a problem with the mere existence of the Novus Ordo mass, had the Old Mass been allowed to continue alongside it.

I doubt it. If they have no problem with the NO per se, they are probably just Trads, not RadTrads.

[bill912]

"...our Western culture discards old ideas and structures with all the thoughtful consideration of a drunk tossing empty beer cans out the car window."

As Fulton Sheen said: When you think you've come up with a completely new idea, go read what Aristotle wrote about it.

[Smoky Mountain]

Wow. Beautiful, Tim.

[Esau]

MORE UPDATE RE: THE MOTU PROPRIO

Tridentine Mass: Pope looks for bridge to tradition

EXCERPT:

One big clue to the pope's thinking came in his 1997 book, titled "Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977" and written when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in which he sharply criticized the drastic manner in which Pope Paul VI reformed the Mass in 1969.

...

But the picture is not so clear-cut. As Cardinal Ratzinger, he said he considered the new missal a "real improvement" in many respects, and that the introduction of local languages made sense.

In one revealing speech to Catholic traditionalists in 1998, he said bluntly that the old "low Mass," with its whispered prayers at the altar and its silent congregation, "was not what liturgy should be, which is why it was not painful for many people" when it disappeared.

The most important thing, he said at that time, was to make sure that the liturgy does not divide the Catholic community.

With that in mind, knowledgeable Vatican sources say the pope's new document will no doubt aim to lessen pastoral tension between the Tridentine rite and the new Mass, rather than hand out a victory to traditionalists.

CNS on the Motu Proprio: a link and commentary

EXCERPT:

What came to my mind here was there is also a need for those who have rejected our tradition and traditional forms to likewise demonstrate their own good will and a hermeneutic of continuity. Let's be clear and fair, there has been a hermeneutic of rupture which has banished most anything deemed "pre-conciliar" and this is as problematic as the sort of traditionalist who has rejected anything and everything "post-conciliar."

Further, not all "traditionalists" take on this approach of rupture. If they are simply attached to the treasures of the classical liturgy, desirous of true liturgical reform in the light of both the Council and our tradition of organic development, all the while never questioning the validity of the modern Roman rite, but calling for a reform of the reform with regard to it, then it seems to me that they have nothing to justify and join the ranks of our Holy Father as a Cardinal in this set of ideas. In that regard, I would propose they form a part of the true liturgical centre and mainstream ---- just as do those who focus upon the reform of the reform, but who are supportive of the availability of the classical liturgy, provided we do not take an immobiliistic and triumphalistic approach to it, or one which rejects the Council -- not as popular opinion may go of course, but as the mind of the Church may go, as seen in the light of the Conciliar documents and our tradition.

As for the extremes, the road to a change of heart and mind is not a one way street as this article might make one think; it is rather and precisely a two-way street.

[Dan Hunter]

Tim,
Thank you for the very nice article,
I believe you are right on when you say that had the Classical Rite remained alongside the Novus Ordo that there would not be as much pain and frustration amongst those who recognize a more sacrifice oriented mass as opposed to a more horizontal view.
I personally think that the two mass's could not have co-existed together equally.In other words the 7am mass is Tridentine,the 9am mass Novus Ordo and so on.I personally think that the Tridentine mass is of a much more reverent nature,even when the Novus Ordo is offered and prayed correctly.
Personally I have grown infinitely closer to the Lord, have learned much,much more about my faith and am able to understand the holy sacrifice of Mass much more clearly since I started assisting at the Tridentine Mass.
Of course,you would have to be faithless to think that the Novus Ordo is invalid or that the Supreme Pontiff is an heretic.One would not be Catholic if one thought this.But personally I believe that the Classical rite Mass when offered correctly is more pleasing to God and more graceful, for us, than the newer mass.
I just pray to the good Lord above that when the Motu Proprio is released by His Holiness,that priests do not try to wing the mass and botch it up.This would be very abusive.
God bless you

[Tim J.]

I want to make clear that I am not trying to psychoanalyze anyone, either. I am only trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who had grown up with the TLM and the had the kind of wrenching experience of the New Mass that I described. Cognitive Dissonance is just a handy way to describe how I think that might have felt.

[Esau]

Dan,

Your post above has some good points.

The first being that of the implementation of the Novus Ordo Missae, which appears to have been very abrupt and without even a transition phase.

This, understandably, would lead to certain people's refusal to even accept the New Mass since there wasn't even any prior introduction as to the whys and what for, it seems.

Also, one thing I cannot refute and do admit -- for some reason, when I had attended the Indult Mass at a distant parish (no longer celebrated, unfortunately, since the priest there retired), I had not once witnessed an abuse of the Liturgy or the flagrant irreverence I've often witnessed at my current Novus Ordo Missae parish.

I mean, is there a genuinely valid reason folks chew gum at Mass as if it were some social event like a baseball game and why they dress up as if they were actually attending one?

Even at a Protestant service, folks often dressed up in their best Sunday outfits like suits and dresses.

How much more when attending the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and receiving Our Lord in the Eucharist?

But I guess we should show the utmost respect to Our Lord by including gum in our mouth when receiving Him!

[Some Day]

See the thing is that many conservative people crystalized at the sight of decadence and like counterrevolutionaries they stood against it.

But the thing is, that evil knows there those people out there. So what does the evil forces do, they create a "false right", ultra-conservative in appearance, satisfying to the crystalized person, but being a tool of the Devil, the false right is as said false.

Like the Pharisees against Our Lord, they not only hate but with self-love the Left, but hate the True Right, the real counterrevolutionaries.
They are good only in appearance, because they commit the same or worst kinds of sins as the liberal revolutionaries.

The True Right is certainly cautiously using the New Mass, but with all the splendor and more than the Old Mass, because even though constrained, the True Right is holy and truly progresses and perfects. It has an unsatiable desire to perfection. They are not making any noise or pointing fingers (for now) because it is not convenient for the cause.

Yet as the Our Lord conforts us:
...sed confidite Ego vici mundum
John 16:33

And Our Lady in Fatima promised:

"In the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph!"

[Brian]

Even at a Protestant service, folks often dressed up in their best Sunday outfits like suits and dresses.

Esau that's a very good point. My sportscoat and tie fit right in at my wife's Presbyterian service, but, sadly, I stand out like a sore thumb at Mass. Does anyone know why Protestants dress up and Catholics don't? (While I'm asking, the same question goes for singing.)

[Some Day]

The False Right can sometimes extend to "conservative" protestants.
Yet there errors are still grave and crystalizing in some areas of morality does not save them as a whole.

[Smoky Mountain]

Some Day,

Why do you write in Latin sometimes? What do you hope to achieve? I suspect the majority of Jimmy's readership can't understand Latin, so you're probably not communicating.

[Some Day]

I thought most people go to Latin or like Latin Mass and music?

I for one, even though I like it, have only been a handful of times.

Plus, Madame, il convainc très quand vous vous servez d'autres langages.

No seriosly, some phrases I only know in certain languages.

[Smoky Mountain]

The point of these forums is to communicate; as this is an English language blog, I don't think it's appropriate to write little one-liners in another language. It comes off as pretentious, to me.

[Some Day]

Sorry, but I seriously do not recieve all my education in English.
And translating takes longer, and plus I would think that most people here are smart enough to see what things mean.

[Smoky Mountain]

I guess I'm dumb them. :(

[Smoky Mountain]

them = then

[Some Day]

No not at all.

Well...

I do wish you were Catholic.

[Smoky Mountain]

And translating takes longer

My premise is that most people here speak English only. So writing in another language means that they will not understand what you wrote. So, by suggesting that "translating takes longer", you are saying "I'd rather write something quickly that most people won't understand, then take a little more time so that I actually communicate to everyone."

[Some Day]

Could be.

But my other statement still holds weight.

Plus, Madame, il convainc très quand vous vous servez d'autres langages.

or

Plus, miss, it is very convincing when you use other languages.

#1 seems melhor. ;)

[Smoky Mountain]

I'm male.

[Esau]

Smoky,

Actually, what you are saying here to Smoky:

So, by suggesting that "translating takes longer", you are saying "I'd rather write something quickly that most people won't understand, then take a little more time so that I actually communicate to everyone."

...would be a very uncharitable characterization.

If from a more charitable perspective, one might think that Some Day believes the audience is intelligent enough to decipher what he is saying, given that Jimmy had introduced Latin on this blog in the past and also provided some basics.

Besides, what he said here:

John 16:33

... utilized rudimentatry Latin words; not to mention, he actually included the verse in the Bible.

[Esau]

Correction:

Actually, what you are saying here to Some Day...

P.S.

Also, Smoky, who's to say that Some Day had his bible verses memorized in Latin rather than in English (especially given his past communications) and, therefore, when he quotes, he is doing so from the memorized Latin.

[Some Day]

Smoky,

Sorry I thought you were some girl that was curious but not a Catholic.

Are you the same but male?

What the heck is going on here?
Please get back to Tims great post.
God bless.

[Smoky Mountain]

Esau,

I agree I was a bit uncharitable. I still disagree that the use of non-English languages is appropriate.

Some Day writes:
No seriosly, some phrases I only know in certain languages
If doesn't know how to say them in English, why should we be expected to understand them?

Some Day writes:
And translating takes longer
Esau writes:
when he quotes, he is doing so from the memorized Latin
The burden shouldn't be on the reader to translate.

Esau writes:
utilized rudimentatry Latin words
Latin is Greek to me :). I have no idea what the Bible verse says.

Communication is difficult enough as it is (as evidenced by the constant arguments on these forums). It is the burden of the writer, in my opinion, to write as clearly as possible so as to increase the likelihood that the reader will understand. Any impediments to clarity are counterproductive.

[Smoky Mountain]

Sorry I thought you were some girl that was curious but not a Catholic.

Nope. I'm a dude. I was raised Catholic but I've not practiced for several years.

[Some Day]

But you saw that other post where you thought my is not is to you.

It was not, just that my post was not fast enough or yours came first, but I did not see it though I refresh like every 10 seconds.

That is why I rather post first and any doubts we can resolve later.

[Suzanne]

Tim, nice post.

I can't be suffering from cognitive disonance if I had never experienced the TLM as a child, right? I was born in 1964. I have been told that our diocese (OKC) was one of the very first to implement the NO under Bishop Quinn and so I grew up with felt banners, kum bah ya, guitar masses, etc. I knew nothing different.

So now that I understand the teachings of the Church (thanks to Catholic answers, EWTN, etc circa 2002) why do I long for the TLM?

Why do people who have always had the NO mass now hunger for the TLM?

It's not cognitive disonance. Are both masses valid? Sure.

I certainly can't say I know the mind of God, but which one do you think He prefers? And I am just thinking about silence, reverence, etc.

Not trying to be a wiseguy or anything of the sort. I am just an ignorant redneck from Oklahoma asking questions.

[Smoky Mountain]

But you saw that other post where you thought my is not is to you

You could have quoted Lana's text to which you were responding, and then there would be no confusion (and no need to post quickly -- better to post slowly and make sure you write what you intend to write -- these posts stick around for a long time).

[Some Day]

Well I remeber you telling me something like that...

I recieved Holy Communion for your conversion,
but was under the impression that you where a girl that likes to hike.

God listens anyways though...

I hope you decide to open up to His grace.

[Some Day]

I know...

But I'm a bit impatient in my responses...

Mainly because you have to refresh to make sure some idiot does not say something stupid and confusing and gets away with it.

[Smoky Mountain]

Patience is a virtue. :)

[Esau]

Okay, uhhhh, Smoky and Some Day, not to take away from the fun you guys are having here, but are you two going to continue your casual conversation here all throughout the thread?

[Some Day]

Suzanne,

All of us long for God, and beauty is reflection of God in His Creation.

The Church is the most beautiful thing we have.

Yet She has been covered with a smoke that hides that from us.

This NO, is certainly valid, as the Church in all Her battles will certainly prevent the forces of evil to feed us something that can give us a mortal blow. Yet the NO "tastes like heresy" a theologan once said. Yet taste is not is, but that taste is that it certainly can conduce to heresy much easier than before. And because of this it has lent itself to abuse. So you never see any beauty in the Mass, we see more like a show and social gathering with guitars.

But the NO Mass can be beautiful, because like I said before, it is still officially from Mother Church.

Look at the Vatican Masses, the Shrine from Mother Angelica and for me I have seen it in many times in the Heralds of the Gospel.

That is why the most of the apostolate of the Heralds is that, show the world the beauty of God within the Church.

[Esau]

Some Day,

This was good:

All of us long for God, and beauty is reflection of God in His Creation.

The Church is the most beautiful thing we have.

Yet She has been covered with a smoke that hides that from us.

However, as regards this:

Yet the NO "tastes like heresy" a theologan once said. Yet taste is not is, but that taste is that it certainly can conduce to heresy much easier than before.

This is where you might consider utilizing certain Latin distinctions in order to achieve precision, as the plain meaning of certain English words can sometimes convolute things.

[Mary Kay]

Imagine, having been raised with the old Latin Mass, going to your parish church one day and - with very little explanation - experiencing the equivalent of the average modern teen mass

Tim, while the transition did occur without sufficient preparation, it was not a one day abrupt change. Nor was it intended to throw out all that came before. (although some were opportunistic in using it for what was not meant)

[Mary Kay]

Why do people who have always had the NO mass now hunger for the TLM?

Suzanne, you might also ask why so many who did experienced the Tridentine now prefer the Novus Ordo.

It's been said in these comboxes before and I'll say it again, It is not the form of the Mass that makes the difference.

[bill912]

Mary Kay is correct about the change coming in stages. At first, we celebrated the Tridentine Mass in English. I remember, as an altar boy, having to read the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar from a card for a while. I had them down cold in Latin from age ten (still do). Then there were a few more changes over the next few years.

[Esau]

bill912,

If that was the case, then why'd John say:

"This is another farce. If Paul VI could overnight as my parents have told me introduced the New Mass with no advance warning, except a few handouts at the back of the church for a month leading up to the debacle of 1970, then the Pope could do the same today"

Posted by: John | Dec 14, 2006 1:32:18 PM

[Esau]

For clarification, I merely interested in knowing what actually happened since this was WAY, WAY before my time.

[Jared]

Still trying to imagine the football game mentality (wherein the "youth music minister" dufus shouts "THE LORD BE WITH YOU, BROTHERS AND SISTERS!" repeatedly until the congregation responds with the "appropriate" volume for his tastes) being present at a Latin Mass.

...

"DOMINUS VOBISCUM, BROTHERS AND SISTERS!"

"I SAID, 'DOMINUS VOBISCUM!!!'"

Nope, still not able to imagine it.

...

But just in case, how does one say, "Hey, dufus! You're not a cheerleader!" in Latin?

[Some Day]

ego dixit "DOMINUS VOBISCUM"

LOL

Mirare stultus, tu non est domine clamator

A terrible guess.

[Willo]

I'd suggest,

"O Stulte! Clamator Domini non es."

[Mary Kay]

Thanks Esau. So are you going to hand me my Geritol and walker and let me spend some time with my pet pterodactyl? :)

I have a rather fuzzy memory of that time so this is some selected changes from a timeline at the back of Dictionary of the Liturgy by a Fr. Jovian Lang:

1963 Sacrosanctum Concilium on the Liturgy
1964 Mass in English is introduced
1965 Encyclical Mysterium Fidei on the Eucharist
1967 Communion under both species
instruments other than organ allowed
1968 three new Eucharistic Prayers
1969 Vatican II Latin edition of the New Order of Mass and Roman Calendar and Lectionary
1970 permission for Saturday vigil
1971-1972 revised breviary
1972 Vatican II Latin edition of RCIA
readers and acolytes
Rite of Anointing and Pastoral Care of the Sick
1973 permission for extraordinary ministers of Eucharist
Vatican II edition of Rite of Penance
1974 Marialis Cultus
Jubilate Deo

I left out a lot, but those are the changes most noticed by people.

[Esau]

Thanks Mary Kay for that info!!!!! Really and truly appreciate it!

About this though:
Thanks Esau. So are you going to hand me my Geritol and walker and let me spend some time with my pet pterodactyl? :)

My sincerest, humblest apologies -- I did not mean to actually imply such -- especially as concerns you, my dearest! =^)

[Smoky Mountain]

I expect by:

this was WAY, WAY before my time.

Esau meant:

this was WAY, WAY before my conversion

But he could've meant it both ways -- I don't know hold the lil' bugger is.

[Smoky Mountain]

I meant:

I don't know old the lil' bugger is.

I'm having trouble typing tonight.

[Smoky Mountain]

Doh!

I meant:

I don't know how old the lil' bugger is.

LOL!

[Smoky Mountain]

It appears I'm suffering from cognitive dissonance. And yes, Esau, I called you a lil' bugger.

[Brian]

If anyone wishes to tackle this... It seems the fact that many Protestants dress up and act more reverently at their services than Catholics may indicate that the NO Mass is not solely responsible for the abuses that have taken place since Vatican II. Protestant services are much more similar to the NO than the TLM and yet they haven't reached our level of irreverence. Any thoughts?

P.S. I don't know what it's like at your parish, but now that it's soccer season there's enough uniforms at Mass to field a whole team at mine.

[Jared]

Some Day and Willo: Thanks, guys. I knew I count on someone to know.

Smoky: I wasn't gonna mention this but since you've been callin' out Some Day for posting foreign phrases ... you do know what the English mean when they say "bugger," right?

[Smoky Mountain]

Smoky: I wasn't gonna mention this but since you've been callin' out Some Day for posting foreign phrases ... you do know what the English mean when they say "bugger," right?

I don't, and if it's something offensive I apologize. I didn't recognize "bugger" as a "foreign phrase".

[Smoky Mountain]

Wow. I just used google's define capability. I apologize to everyone -- I had no idea that it meant that in British usage.

Sorry Esau -- I meant no offense.

[J]

As for not dressing up... at least in my parish, a lot of people attend Mass as part of a routine, often their daily routine, and therefore come as they are. I don't think it's disrespectful at all. I do think it's disrespectful to suggest that, if one doesn't have time to run home and change, one shouldn't attend Mass. Sunday Mass is, of course, obligatory, and if possible it's encouraged to receive holy Communion daily. I consider it far better to receive Christ daily wearing sweatpants (Christ never indicated a preference for his followers' clothing, as far as I know) than to not receive him because one happens to be wearing sweatpants.

I suppose if attending Mass is the only thing on one's agenda for the day, then it makes sense to dress nicely. But few people have easy enough lives that they only have one thing to do per day.

On the other hand, my Protestant friends (and maybe I'm overgeneralizing here, because I don't have friends from every denomination) attend services once a week, sometimes less because there is no obligation to go. They don't believe in the Real Presence, and so don't make time in their day to receive Communion. When they attend church, they are going to see other people and listen to a man (or woman) preach, not to receive Christ and be in the Presence of the Eucharist. They're dressing up because church is a social event they can choose to attend or not attend, and they dress up to fit in and impress other people, not because they are in the Real Presence of Christ. And they can find God just as easily praying in their Bible study group or going for a hike as they can in Church, dressed casually I'm sure, whereas many Catholics prefer to pray in a Church before the Eucharist.

Also, as far as Protestant dress goes, there are also hundreds or thousands of churches where everyone, pastor included, wears jeans and listens to rock music. So it's hardly true that Protestants, on average, dress better than Catholics.

Anyway, the Cliff notes version of my post is that, unlike Protestants, Mass attendance is obligatory and many Catholics prefer to pray in the presence of the Eucharist, and it's not possible for everyone to go change their clothes beforehand.

[Maureen]

People still dressed up for Mass well into the 80's and 90's. Heck, we didn't routinely receive communion under both species until well into the 80's.

Okay, it has been said that our diocese runs 10-20 years behind everyone else, but....

[John]

I agree with Dan and Tim

Why was the Traditional mass banned like it was leprosy until JPII was cornered by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988 (I dont want to be accused of hijacking this thread)almost 20 years later, and even today you cant get a true traditional mass (I hate the word indult as it means "allow" if I recall my Latin from 20 years ago, as one should not have to be allowed or granted permission to say a mass in an ancient rite. Why the change in every area of the church from the sacraments, to the mass, to canon law, to catechism, to the bible, why the need to compromise with this rotten secular sinful world?

[J]

John, as I understand it, the indult is required to ensure that the parish that wants to say Mass in Latin accepts the authority of the Pope and the legitimacy of Vatican II.

Groups that do not accept the authority of the Magisterium or consider Vatican II illegitimate present a real threat to the Church, and shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want.

[John]

Esau posted (in his comtinued infacatuation with me (I hope you are not a stalker Esau):

""This is another farce. If Paul VI could overnight as my parents have told me introduced the New Mass with no advance warning, except a few handouts at the back of the church for a month leading up to the debacle of 1970, then the Pope could do the same today"

Yes Esau, the new mass was introduced with little fanfare, with no "blogs" and no TV as I was a youngster and I recall vividly and have even asked my mother the same to recollec.

The MP and the so called "resotration" or allowance of the ancient rite has been talked about an debated like it is some chemotherapy for cancer, which the NO mass is basically cancer for ones faith, with the FDC waiting on an approval!

Esau-you are so lame as people laugh at you

[Some Day]

Esau would seem (seem is the max I can determine from this bloging unless God grants discernment of the spirits through writing) to be a more virtuous person than yourself John.

But then maybe you are just as hardheaded as I am and like to show-off.

But unfortunetly, you seem to have proved (and of this I have no doubt) that you are a typical false rightist.

If you think the problems are only as deep as you rant they are (and your so-called knowledge on masons is simply what they want you to know so as a typical false rightist, you discredit the fact that the Devil has his human agents) then you know very little, but pharisiacally claim you do because you are a "Champion of Tradition" in your mind.

You want to fight progressivists and the evil forces in the world John, be humble, and above all pure, because only a pure man can combat this fight.

Pray, because it would appear you don't have the vocation to be the specific person or member of that group that will fight this fight.

But you are called to be a Son of the Light regardless of your specific vocation.
So all I can tell you is to be virtous, pray a lot, esspecially the Rosary and recieve daily Communion.

Know that the world is going down the drain and greatly offends God, and will soon get what is coming to it. Pray so God intervines in our history, because that is the only solution now.
Hate what is evil, but hold it in because it is not time yet.

Vigilance and prayer

[Ed S]

Going back to the Tridentine Mass would take me from being a full participant at Mass to an uneasy observer, at least immediately ... perhaps forever. And just so you know, I went to Brother Dutton grade school, Beloit Catholic High School, and Marquette University all before 1962. I was an altar boy for six years and even trained younger altar boys. I took two years of Latin in high school. I hated the Novus Ordo as it began, but now, going back to the TLM would be like going back to my hometown after being gone for 50 years. And I’ve done both since last August, i.e., attended three Tridentine Masses and the 50th reunion of the class of ‘56; whoever said that you can’t go back, was right. And I have absolutely no desire to do so. If I were required to attend the Tridentine Mass, I would consider it a penance. I find beauty and joy in my current NO Eucharistic celebration.

[Mary Kay]

Tim, well we had relative peace for just under 5 hours until John came back and called the Novus Ordo a "cancer."

[Tim J.]

Okay, y'all get a cookie for keeping the comments pretty charitable so far. Let's not let things slide into personal tit-for-tat or hobby horsing. Don't make me get the hatchet.

Suzanne asked;

"Why do people who have always had the NO mass now hunger for the TLM?"

I don't want to give the impression that I think everyone respnded to the N.O. mass in the same way. I expect some were happy enough to see the changes, some were ambivalent, some hostile, and many just confused.

Everyone has their own personal likes and dislikes, as well as their own history and experience of the liturgy.

I can't say for sure that I really long for the TLM, only that I DO long for what I think the TLM COULD be. In that sense, though, I would be happy with a more solemn, high-church approach to the Novus Ordo.

Personally, I'm excited at the prospect of the Motu Proprio and the possibility that I might be able to attend a Latin Mass soon. But I am also of the opinion that the only proper attitude toward ANY mass wherein I receive Christ in the Eucharist is "Oh Lord, I am not worthy to receive you".

Unless there are some very serious abuses taking place (and I know this happens, and I feel for those who have to carry that cross) the best mass is always the next one I can get to.

[Michael]

Is is cognitive dissonance to wander into an indult mass one Sunday morning and walk away in wonder asking yourself how what you experienced your entire life could ever be put in the same category as what you just found? Why was all this beauty kept from me for so long and how can I forgive those who worked so hard to suppress this patrimony? And finally, why do so many respond in anger when you excitedly try to relate the beauty of what you did not until recently know even ever existed?

Jimmy,
I wish to express my appreciation for the spirit of charity that obviously inspired your post. Thank you.

[Some Day]

Um Tim Jones wrote it Micheal.
You know the guy who posted above you.

[Tim J.]

I would guess that the introduction of the N.O. varied WIDELY from diocese to diocese, parish to parish. In some places it was probably phased in, in others there were probably those who could not wait to take the VII football and run as far as they could with it, sometimes clear past the end-zone and out of the stadium.

John, you might be more persuasive if you could express what it is you love about the Latin Mass, rather than falling back on your standard carping about the Novus Ordo and JPII. If you think Archbishop LeFebvre could IN ANY WAY "corner" JPII and pressure him on the liturgy, you are sadly mistaken.

Right now, you are on thin ice. Keep the gloves up, or be deleted.

[Esau]

Well, Tim J., I'm rather flattered that you actually considered John's potshots at me as 'charitable'.

[Michael]

"Oh Lord, I am not worthy to receive you"

In the TLM, triply so.

Domine, non sum dignu ut intres sub tectum meum, sed tantum sic verbo et sanabitur anima mea. Repeat twice.

[Esau]

Jimmy,
I wish to express my appreciation for the spirit of charity that obviously inspired your post. Thank you.

Michael,

This post was done by Tim J.

But I agree that it was a very good post though.

[Casey Truelove]

Shouldn't we be careful in the way we use our words? There is no restriction to using Latin in the Novus Ordo Mass, so isn't calling the Tridentine Mass the "Latin Mass" a little misleading? It seems to me to be suggesting that Latin is only used in the Tridentine Mass. There are many things that people changed post-Vatican II, which Vatican II itself never actually suggested to be changed. Many people who love/miss some of the traditions of the Tridentine Mass, might be consoled at a Novus Ordo Mass that retained many of those traditions that many parishes have lost: the priest facing Ad Orientum (or at least Ad Apsium), Altar Crosses, Communion Rails, Chanted Mass Parts, Latin Mass Parts, Statues, other Catholic Architecture, etc. None of the liturgical documents called for a removal of these in the Novus Ordo. Vatican II allowed the use of the common language of the people, but not to the exclusion of Latin. I've heard it suggested to chant all of the Mass parts in Latin, except the Readings and Presidential Prayers because those are the parts that change daily. Pre-16 suggested a lot of this in his book "The Spirit of the Liturgy".

[Some Day]

It is not misleading. If you enter a conversation on quantum physics you better know what they are talking about at the risk of looking incredibly stupid.

Don't be square. That is the lazyness of the mind to go past the fact that Latin is the official language of the Church, and can be used in NO, but is usually in reference to the TO Mass.

It is not a math equation ;)

[Some Day]

Ad Apsium?

Are you sure you got the words right?

I don't think that is a word in Latin.

[Tim J.]

"Well, Tim J., I'm rather flattered that you actually considered John's potshots at me as 'charitable'."

The hazards of cross-posting, Esau. What can I say? Please see my warning shot to John, above.

Just try to bite your toungue and let it go. Offer it up. If it continues, I'll be all over it like a chiken on a cutworm.

No more personal remarks. They are worse than useless, they sully and distort the image of Christ that we are supposed to be showing to the world. They destroy our witness.

[Dan Hunter]

Mary Kay,
Why do you prefer the Novus Ordo over the Tridentine Mass?
Could you please,if you have the time, list all of your reasons and then maybe a comparison between the two.
This might help me understand more fully the Novus Ordo Mass.
God bless you

[Some Day]

Some one I don't know who posted they feel like a complete participant at NO.

Well that proves one part of what could be a valid arguement.

The "community"does not offer any sacrifice.

Our Lord does.

It is the incruent renovation of the Sacrifice of the Cross.

That idea lead to heresies that said that the consecration was not complete until the faithful said "Amen" before recieving Communion.

And others.

It "tastes like heresy".

Yes we are a community.

But that is on an infinetly lower level.

The merits of a Mass are infinite.

You are there to adore Our Lord, to recieve Him in order to greater give Him glory.

Not be a sensual person and only look to feel good singing and save my little soul.

We are here and exist to give glory to God.

And doing backflips in Mass does not do that.

In Latin, English or Aramaic. If you go to Mass in any Rite like that you are not going to sanctify yourself.

[Ed S]

Casey, Good points! The Ignatius Press (I would guess other publishers too) put out a $3 prayer booklet for the Mass of Vatican II as promulgated by Paul VI, but in the form clearly envisioned by the Fathers of the Council in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (These words from the booklet.) Fixed or unchanging parts of the Mass are in Latin with side by side translations. The variable parts of the Mass are in English. The booklet contains traditional Gregorian chant settings for both the Order of Mass itself and the Ordinary chants.

Our Church used this a few weeks ago to see what acceptance it might get. Haven't heard of the results. The only down side for me was the priest raced through the Latin ... just like old times.

An interesting note says there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them. (There's more, but I'm not a typist.)

I bought a copy because I thinking it may become the Mass Book of the near future.

[Esau]

CASEY TRUELOVE:

EXCELLENT POINT!!!

SOME DAY:

Casey is right in his post -- Vatican II did not call for the total elimination of Latin from the Mass. It encouraged greater use of the vernacular but it still, if you read the Vatican II document, it still envisions substantial parts of the Mass being in Latin and that’s something that was de-emphasized after the Council.

Yes, there has always been permission to celebrate the Mass in Latin. Now, the Rite of the Mass was changed around 1970 and most of the time, if you wanted to say it in Latin, you’d have to say the 1970 version in Latin; the 1962 version, though, has permission to be used in some settings; but the Church has never envisioned a total abolition of Latin and there has been a movement in recent years to re-emphasize that by the Holy See.

Hopefully, with the Motu Proprio, this will re-emphasis will be realized.

[Anon]

If we use all these criteria to determine if a mass is valid or not, will the original last supper be considered valid?

[Some Day]

And you say this why Esau?

I know this.

My last post was to that person speaking about
spectator vs. "full participation".

Both are erronous conclusions.

[Esau]

Some Day,

I was referring to what I thought was your post to Casey: Posted by: Some Day | May 2, 2007 8:14:42 PM.

[Esau]

Some Day,

About your comment:
My last post was to that person speaking about
spectator vs. "full participation".

I believe you may have missed my Posted by: Esau | May 2, 2007 2:20:05 PM post wherein I included an excerpt regarding Cardinal Ratzinger's views:

One big clue to the pope's thinking came in his 1997 book, titled "Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977" and written when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in which he sharply criticized the drastic manner in which Pope Paul VI reformed the Mass in 1969.

But the picture is not so clear-cut. As Cardinal Ratzinger, he said he considered the new missal a "real improvement" in many respects, and that the introduction of local languages made sense.

In one revealing speech to Catholic traditionalists in 1998, he said bluntly that the old "low Mass," with its whispered prayers at the altar and its silent congregation, "was not what liturgy should be, which is why it was not painful for many people" when it disappeared.

[Some Day]

Yeah I know, but I was just making a point that many people esspecially that Lana are so "square" and not mentally flexible to get what most of us regular posters mean.

When we say the Latin Mass we are not talking about the NO in Latin.

Ofcourse it not the absolute, inequivocably, perfect proper name.

But in casual conversation, do you have to make distinction between for example "the president is stupid." or do you have to be so square as to say "the currently elected president of the republic of the united states of america, George Walker Bush is stupid." Again it is just an example.

Politics is not something I get into.

[Some Day]

Definetly.

The liturgy needed renewal.

It is just questionable the way it was done.

The Church is always old and always new.

We don't celebrate in catecombs and in aramaic anymore.

The Church, with the merits of the Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ rises continually to aspire to the Absolute Perfection, God.

But sometimes when you "open the windows"you don't get fresh air and sunlight.

You get smoke and a storm.

[Ed S]

Some Day, I sorry I didn't have my "theological mouth" in the right gear when I used the word participation at Mass. Yes, I learned long ago from the Jesuits in the 60s that the Mass is a public act of adoration. They used this distinction one day in class to discourage us from praying the Rosary at Mass... people praying the Rosary were not concentrating on the Sacrifice. When I used the word participation, I meant being fully aware of the Divine Sacrifice and using one's senses, intellect, will, behavior, and love to give full witness to it.

[Sharon]

In one revealing speech to Catholic traditionalists in 1998, he said bluntly that the old "low Mass," with its whispered prayers at the altar and its silent congregation, "was not what liturgy should be, which is why it was not painful for many people" when it disappeared.

Esau, could you provide a source for the above quote.

[Some Day]

The senses are important.
They have their role.

But the western man has become to sensual.

We guide ourselves based on what we feel more so than convictions.

Look at a picture of an afgani.

Yes he is a pagan and so forth. Many deplorable things.

But he is not a sensual man.

He has convictions, however wrong they are.

Now look at an American.

There is so many bad tendencies that I cannot begin to describe.

It is our fault. The Middle Ages was declined into the Rennaisance because of sensuality and lack of conviction.

But anyhow, I respectfully disagree that people these days have a real sense of what is happening.

And the new liturgy left itself open to that.

But ofcourse, don't think I go TO Mass.
I've probably been at 5 my whole life.

I go to Mass wherever it is closest.
I prefer the more decent churches, because it helps elevate the soul more, but ultimetly, even if the priest dresses as a clown, I know what is going on.

Though if he does dress up as clown, I'll probably recieve with a conditional act of adoration, because unless he is just that bad, he probably doesn't have the intention to confect the Eucharist. But he could be that bad to do it on purpose.

Sorry if I came on rough.

But I'm hispanic, and I got my own cultural defects (not as much as you may think, I was born in PR, but can pass for a white guy easily because my family is more European{Spanish-Swiss, go HRE!}, but "squareness" is an anglo-saxon thing.

[Some Day]

Well good night everyone.

It is 12:37 am here.

I'm only awake because I'm hitting the weights in my room and some energy booster I took is freakishly loaded with caffeine.

Well Our Lady protect all of you.

Good night!

[Esau]

Esau, could you provide a source for the above quote.

I did -- In fact, I provide TWO LINKS in my Posted by: Esau | May 2, 2007 2:20:05 PM post above concerning it.

Go to my first post -- CLICK the Links I've provided there.

[StubbleSpark]

I am a former Baptist convert and I really wonder if the crossing would have been possible for me if it were not for the N.O. mass. The TRM would have been just too alien for me. Of course, this does not mean that God would not have still converted me to His Church, but it does mean that, like it or not, I am a "child" of the N.O. mass.

However, as I grew in my faith, I became more and more aware of what the liturgical abuses meant. At first it bothered me, then it bugged me, then it got intolerable. Though I still go to the O.M. I only do so because the TRM is not available every day.

The worst thing about the O.M. is its susceptibility to things like fads, trends, the times, and local color. It means never knowing what you are going to get going from one church to the next. I have celebrated in Hawaii, California, Michigan, all over Texas, Wisconsin, Hikone, and Vermont and each time got something so radically different I was left doubting if the service I attended was really a Catholic mass or a Lutheran one, or a charismatic service, or a liturgical dance class ...

One of the biggest failings of Protestantism is its emphasis on the subjective at the expense of the objective and though this philosophy is not as prevalent in Catholic circles, some of the O.M. abuses seem to accommodate such thinking.

[Esau]

Sharon:

Here's my post again and this time I've labelled the links I previously provided with the label "Link". I think maybe that's why you might not have noticed that these were actually links when I originally posted it on this thread (I actually posted this previously on other threads as well). As you can see from the first link provided, the excerpt I quoted came from an article from Catholic News Service.

MORE UPDATE RE: THE MOTU PROPRIO

Link:
Tridentine Mass: Pope looks for bridge to tradition

EXCERPT:

One big clue to the pope's thinking came in his 1997 book, titled "Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977" and written when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in which he sharply criticized the drastic manner in which Pope Paul VI reformed the Mass in 1969.

...

But the picture is not so clear-cut. As Cardinal Ratzinger, he said he considered the new missal a "real improvement" in many respects, and that the introduction of local languages made sense.

In one revealing speech to Catholic traditionalists in 1998, he said bluntly that the old "low Mass," with its whispered prayers at the altar and its silent congregation, "was not what liturgy should be, which is why it was not painful for many people" when it disappeared.

The most important thing, he said at that time, was to make sure that the liturgy does not divide the Catholic community.

With that in mind, knowledgeable Vatican sources say the pope's new document will no doubt aim to lessen pastoral tension between the Tridentine rite and the new Mass, rather than hand out a victory to traditionalists.

Link:
CNS on the Motu Proprio: a link and commentary

EXCERPT:

What came to my mind here was there is also a need for those who have rejected our tradition and traditional forms to likewise demonstrate their own good will and a hermeneutic of continuity. Let's be clear and fair, there has been a hermeneutic of rupture which has banished most anything deemed "pre-conciliar" and this is as problematic as the sort of traditionalist who has rejected anything and everything "post-conciliar."

Further, not all "traditionalists" take on this approach of rupture. If they are simply attached to the treasures of the classical liturgy, desirous of true liturgical reform in the light of both the Council and our tradition of organic development, all the while never questioning the validity of the modern Roman rite, but calling for a reform of the reform with regard to it, then it seems to me that they have nothing to justify and join the ranks of our Holy Father as a Cardinal in this set of ideas. In that regard, I would propose they form a part of the true liturgical centre and mainstream ---- just as do those who focus upon the reform of the reform, but who are supportive of the availability of the classical liturgy, provided we do not take an immobiliistic and triumphalistic approach to it, or one which rejects the Council -- not as popular opinion may go of course, but as the mind of the Church may go, as seen in the light of the Conciliar documents and our tradition.

As for the extremes, the road to a change of heart and mind is not a one way street as this article might make one think; it is rather and precisely a two-way street.

[Ed S]

Thanks, Some Day. Talk about "cultural defects," I'm Sicilian, Irish, and German. Three grandparents were from the "old country." However, my kids and God love me, and that's all that's important.

[A. Non.]

A few comments.

1) If you are talking about using Latin in the liturgy, then do not be surprised if people write in Latin here. It effectively tells us what most people know: people, even if they had books to follow, will not understand the liturgy the same, and will not follow along in the right spirit.

2) Liturgical abuse - I find the greatest liturgical abuse tends to be from those who are looking for liturgical abuses. Are you really participating in the liturgy; are you really going up for communion in the right spirit, the right frame of mind? It seems the Pharisee is still there.

3) MP -- the MP won't fix anything in the US. An older form of the Latin Liturgy won't fix the cultural problems which are the cause of disbelief, but might encourage more disconnect and push more people off the edge. It's not even a band-aid. But I still will believe it only when I see it. We keep hearing about it, but the prophets of the MP continue to be wrong about it.

4) The so-called trads tend to be traditional protestants influenced by the American, individualistic spirit, where they think they are the proper interpreters of Scripture and tradition, not the Pope. Beware.

[mr]

) If you are talking about using Latin in the liturgy, then do not be surprised if people write in Latin here. It effectively tells us what most people know: people, even if they had books to follow, will not understand the liturgy the same, and will not follow along in the right spirit.

Actually, reading Latin is incredibly easy (not speaking it or writing it - you'd have to memorize a gazillion endings - but READING it). I lvoe it when I am at a Mass with people from all over the world (like at the Vatican) and the Holy Holy Holy, Agnus Dei etc are in Latin. They took all of 5 minutes to learn. Plus, why aren't people taking Latin in school? All my kids had four years of Latin and it was a huge help in many things, not least of which was vocabulary 9so many Latin roots in our words) and literary understanding (many, many MANY writers in MANY fields quote Latin).

There is such a thing as being a lowbrow snob - it is not an oxymoron. Too many people think it is elitist and undemocratic to ask that people learn something new.

[Jared]

mr: I went to public school. Given that I was the last of ten kids (yes, because my parents practiced what they preached), Catholic school was not a viable financial option.

The reason I bring this up? Latin isn't taught in most public schools. I'm only now attempting to catch up on my own.

But it's worse than that. My wife, on the other hand, went to Catholic school (both grade and high school) and neither of those schools offered Latin either.

[A Non.]

Mr

A couple things. You assume I didn't know Latin? I do. I am a doctoral candidate in Systematic Theology. I actually have several languages I can and do work with.

However, other people do not. There is a reason why it was originally put into Latin -- it was for the "lowbrow snobs" who didn't study and know Greek. It was put into Latin as a vernacular tongue. That's right -- and this tradition is a good tradition and helps many people. Not everyone studies languages, and not everyone needs to.

Second, while you think you can study Latin so everyone else should do so - no, not really. As with all intellectual exercises, people often need to survive first, and learning Latin really is far off from their needs.

[Steve]

A.Non.,

You may argue whatever you wish regarding the N.O. v. Latin Mass, but please don't play the old "the faithful can't understand" card.

The missals are incredibly easy to follow. Anyone one goes to a few masses could follow with little effort, and actively participate in prayer. My fiancee doesn't know a lick of Latin and she has no problems when we attend.

[A Non.]

Well, Steve, one person posted Latin here -- even gave the verse so one could look it up, and we got a complaint for that Latin use.

Trust me, the vernacular is better, and this is what the earliest church knew. It didn't make an idol out of languages.

[Brian]

There is such a thing as being a lowbrow snob - it is not an oxymoron.

This doesn't have any bearing on the discussion, but that is an oxymoron. It's made of two contradicting words that form a figure of speech. That doesn't mean its not true. In fact, if it wasn't true it wouldn't be an oxymoron, it would just be meaningless mumbo jumbo.

[Mike Melendez]

I appreciate Mary Kay's chronology, if only because it helps me believe that my memory is not slipping. I was a teenager through the 1960's. As a teenager, the three years between the first English and Communion under both species was forever. That is, to me at least, the transition was anything but abrupt. I became my home parish's first lector in 1966 because our associate pastor liked the way I read during catechism. Yep, that was back when the priests still taught catechism. That said, I had no problem with the Latin Mass either and fondly remember Benediction at High Mass, one Mass every Sunday rather than rarely as today. And I had no problem following the Mass having one of those missals that had Latin on one side and English on the other. As a young twenty-something, I thought the change was a good idea to help us focus on what mattered. I was much surprised by those who thought that Latin or the precise form of the Mass mattered. I left language and form to the Church, I guess like Mark Shea. I was also much surprised by those who thought that the horizontal (community) was in conflict with the vertical (God) with horizontal good and vertical selfish. At the Mass we come as a community to pray to God and receive the newly consecrated Eucharist. If we don't have a relationship with God, we won't have one with the community ... and vice versa. Something about vine and branches.

My own efforts at preservation are rather simple. I geneflect at the tabernacle, if the doors are closed, not to the altar. To the altar I bow. That puts things in the proper perspective: Eucharist first, altar second. Many still geneflect to the altar, showing they didn't know why. No matter. I try to teach by example and watch, learning from the example of others. And I keep studying and learning. The well of our Faith is deep.

[Brian]

Anyway, the Cliff notes version of my post is that, unlike Protestants, Mass attendance is obligatory and many Catholics prefer to pray in the presence of the Eucharist, and it's not possible for everyone to go change their clothes beforehand.

J, thanks for your thoughts, they're very interesting. I was thinking about it last night and the best answer I could come up with is that there's something about Catholic culture that encourages people to stick around even when they have little/no faith. I feel Protestants are more likely to move on to another Church or stop going altogether than Catholics are. The Sunday obligation is probably a factor in this, but I don't think it's the whole thing (after all, what's the obligation mean if you don't believe in the Authority of the Church who obliges it). The average Catholic has pretty much followed the path of the average American over the past 50+ years and for some reason many parishes design their liturgies to reflect this mindset. I think the lack of reverence at Mass today is more a result of this than it is with anything inherent in the NO Mass. The NO Mass itself may even be much more of a reflection of this mindset than it is a cause of it, but I'm not old or wise enough to comment meaningfully on that.

I personally think there's a difference between weekday Mass and Sunday Mass. On weekdays most people go to mass on their way to work or their lunch break or something like that. Go as you are. But Sunday is the Lord's Day, it's different and it should be special. Most parishes have multiple masses on Sunday, so most of the time people have the opportunity to wear their "Sunday best" but choose instead to go to the Mass that fits their errand schedule. And even if that's the case, isn't it better to be overdressed for the grocery store than underdressed for our Lord? I like dressing up because it's good for the individual who dresses up, it builds faith just like genuflecting and other acts of reverence do. Of course one of the hardest things to do is do convince someone to do something for their own good.

Anyway, I hope this motu proprio, if it comes out, creates the choice of a more reverent Mass. Right now the only choice at many parishes is the least common denominator. I agree with Mary Kay that "it is not the form of the Mass that makes the difference." But I do hope that by encouraging greater choice in the form of Mass, the Church will also encourage greater choice in reverence (meaning more reverence not less).

[John]

Please note that the so called person who grew up with the "Old mass" is most likely old or dead by now. The push for the "Traditional latin Mass" has been for the most part by the young, or new parents in their 30's and 40s, having grown up with a weak if not non existent catechism after Vatican II and feeling the mass they have grown up with, the New Mass is banal and leaves you feeling no different after you left than before, are the most vocal and demanding of the rollback. These groups I mentioned have access to the internet and have been educated as to the changes and the clear contradictions and break from tradition as well which took place.

We have seen many in our age group fall from the faith only to find drugs and other horrible avenues, some in part due to lack of fear, and that now "everyone gets to heaven" and "God loves me no matter what", where before Vatican II , HELL was real and a possibility if one did not alaways stay in a state of sancifying grace

Does the priest read at the NO parish the rules for reception of holy communion including being in a state of sanctifying grace anymore? Well they do so at the Traditional Mass. Why is that? Is the body of christ less at the New Mass?

The church is eithe going to believe in her roots, abide by them, and not continue down the path that the church started with Vatican II as a house built on no foundation is bound to fall...