Although I would not adopt Galantarie's manner of expression, I do echo her observation that it speaks volumes about the poverty of
catechesis in the last 40 years that Catholics growing up apparently did not learn about the development of the liturgy in the 20th century, about the heated
debates in the Second Vatican Council, about the existence and practices of the Tridentine Mass, about the role of Latin in Church history, or even were made
aware that the faithful retained the right to kneel for communion. As I noted, all of that was shoved into a basement or attic closet where it was profoundly
hoped that it would wither away from lack of air and nutrition. Unicorn's comments are a vivid illustration of what happened:
And do not delude yourself that Galantarie, I and those hotheads in the blogs are the only ones who feel this way about how the dominant post-Vatican II forces in the Church treated those like us. Here's what Cardinal Ratzinger had to say:
Likewise ripe for chastisement is the Cardinal's claim that the Novus Ordo suffers from "tomfoolery and banal experiments with words." I blench at what might be said about his argument that the creativity advocated and practiced by the new liturgists is basically Marxist. If people can take umbrage at Father Neuhaus's dead-on description of the music at the Washington D.C. Mass as "multicultural preening" which showed that no one had bothered to read Pope Benedict's books on music in the liturgy, then I do really think that in effect no criticism is allowed.
I understand that those of you who were indoctrinated in the Novus Ordo may want explanations of some of the tiny modifications that Msgr. Marini is introducing in papal ceremonies. But it's not as if there are no writings at all on these subjects. The Pope has provided ample explanations in his books on such things as the crucifix on the altar, kneeling at Mass, Latin for common prayers, beauty in the liturgy, Gregorian chant, ad orientem worship. One problem with advance notice of what is going to be done is that then there's too much focus on just that part of the service and the change gets a distorted importance. Everyone will be looking for that "moment" when something different is going to be happening rather than focusing on the service itself.
When I read that none of you other than Galantarie and I have experienced aberrations in the liturgy, I wonder if that can truly be so. Is it the case that no priest has ever processed to the altar, faced the congregation and said: "Good morning everyone!" Or upon departing has exhorted you from the sanctuary to "have a good day." Or has no one ever been asked at the beginning of Mass to turn to others in the pews to shake hands and say hello? Have none of you been subjected to liturgists and priests who insist on "inclusive" language by interpolating "and sisters" into any place in the readings where the words "brothers" appear? Or who contort themselves to avoid using the word "him" or "he" or "his" in connection with God or Jesus? Do extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist distribute communion at every Mass, regardless of the availability of a priest or deacon? Do you have lectors who emote dramatically when reading the word of God? Or cantors who so dominate the proceedings that they and the choir become the celebrants rather than the priest and the altar? Are there any prolonged periods of silence in the Mass or does an instrumentalist keep tinkling on the ivories or strumming a guitar? Does the priest ever choose the Roman canon instead of Eucharistic Prayer II or III or IV? I could go on and on. All of these things are abuses, by the way. The likelihood is that, sadly, you've never been taught that they're not allowed.
although we grew up worshiping in the Novus Ordo Mass, we were never made to feel - nor was it ever specifically expressed to us by the priests, nuns, or religion teachers (in my case, because I attended a Dominican university from grade school to graduate school, and had religion, then theology, classes at every level) - that anything connected to the pre-Vatican II years was wrong; like Pax, I didn't even know that there was such a thing as the "Novus Ordo" - I simply knew that I was going to attend the Mass. We were never told that the Latin Mass was the wrong way to worship, nor were we ever told that the pre-Vatican II Church was outmoded, old-fashioned and behind the times - it was simply known to us as the old Latin Mass, nothing more, nothing less. There was no "right way" or "wrong way" of celebrating the Mass - there was simply the Mass, the Gospel, the Church, and Christ. The animosity you experienced, Rcesq, was most definitely not the case everywhere, and once again, I can only say that I am sorry you had to experience it.Outright attacks on someone at least acknowledge that the person has some life and some spirit worth attacking. It is almost a backhanded way of expressing respect. Ignoring a person's very existence suggests utter contempt, and a total denial of that person's life and spirit. It does not consider the person worthy of any attention whatsoever. In effect, that is how Unicorn's Dominican educators treated the "old Latin Mass." No one spoke of it, no one practiced it, no one ever told her that it was another valid, living, venerable, valuable way to worship. Indeed, she was led to believe that there was only one Mass that was "simply the Mass." The expectation was that if not a word was said about "the old Latin Mass" it would simply disappear along with all those old fogeys who love it. To say that I find that treatment despicable and unworthy of purported Catholic educational institutions is an understatement. I'll bet that Unicorn learned more about Stalin and Hitler than about the Mass of Pope Pius V.
And do not delude yourself that Galantarie, I and those hotheads in the blogs are the only ones who feel this way about how the dominant post-Vatican II forces in the Church treated those like us. Here's what Cardinal Ratzinger had to say:
For fostering a true consciousness in liturgical matters, it is also important that the proscription against the form of liturgy in valid use up to 1970 should be lifted. Anyone nowadays who advocates the continuing existence of this liturgy or takes part in it is treated like a leper; all tolerance ends here. There has never been anything like this in history; in doing this we are despising and proscribing the Church's whole past. How can one trust her present if things are that way? I must say, quite openly, that I don't understad why so many of my episcopal brethren have to a great extent submitted to this rule of intolerance, which for no apparent reason is opposed to making the necessary inner reconciliation within the Church. (Cardinal Ratzinger, God and the World, 2002, Ignatius Press, page 416.)As for the dichotomy between "quasi-marxist PC-ism" and "a wiser Church," which is cited above as an example of the intolerance and needlessly antagonistic language adopted by the traditionalist faction, let me quote you this:
Only respect for the liturgy's fundamental unspontaneity and pre-existing identity can give us what we hope for: the feast in which the great reality comes to us that we ourselves do not manufacture but receive as a gift.I can cite many more passages from Joseph Ratzinger that have a similar tone. Going by the lofty neutered Emily Post standard that is being advocated for discussions about matters liturgical, I would expect much condemnation of his use of such expressions and analysis as:
This means that "creativity" cannot be an authentic category for matters liturgical. In any case this is a word that developed within the Marxist world view. Creativity means that in a universe that in itself is meaningless and came into existence through blind evolution, man can creatively fashion a new and better world. . . . This kind of creativity has no place within the liturgy. The life of the liturgy does not come from what dawns upon the minds of individuals and planning groups. On the contrary, it is God's descent upon our world, the source of real liberation. . . . Yes, the liturgy becomes personal, true, and new, not through tomfoolery and banal experiments with the words, but through a courageous entry into the great reality that through the rite is always ahead of us and can never quite be overtaken. (Spirit of the Liturgy, 2000, Ignatius Press, pages 168-69.)
. . . . treated like a leper; all tolerance ends here. There has never been anything like this in history; in doing this we are despising and proscribing the Church's whole past. How can one trust her present if things are that way?
Likewise ripe for chastisement is the Cardinal's claim that the Novus Ordo suffers from "tomfoolery and banal experiments with words." I blench at what might be said about his argument that the creativity advocated and practiced by the new liturgists is basically Marxist. If people can take umbrage at Father Neuhaus's dead-on description of the music at the Washington D.C. Mass as "multicultural preening" which showed that no one had bothered to read Pope Benedict's books on music in the liturgy, then I do really think that in effect no criticism is allowed.
I understand that those of you who were indoctrinated in the Novus Ordo may want explanations of some of the tiny modifications that Msgr. Marini is introducing in papal ceremonies. But it's not as if there are no writings at all on these subjects. The Pope has provided ample explanations in his books on such things as the crucifix on the altar, kneeling at Mass, Latin for common prayers, beauty in the liturgy, Gregorian chant, ad orientem worship. One problem with advance notice of what is going to be done is that then there's too much focus on just that part of the service and the change gets a distorted importance. Everyone will be looking for that "moment" when something different is going to be happening rather than focusing on the service itself.
When I read that none of you other than Galantarie and I have experienced aberrations in the liturgy, I wonder if that can truly be so. Is it the case that no priest has ever processed to the altar, faced the congregation and said: "Good morning everyone!" Or upon departing has exhorted you from the sanctuary to "have a good day." Or has no one ever been asked at the beginning of Mass to turn to others in the pews to shake hands and say hello? Have none of you been subjected to liturgists and priests who insist on "inclusive" language by interpolating "and sisters" into any place in the readings where the words "brothers" appear? Or who contort themselves to avoid using the word "him" or "he" or "his" in connection with God or Jesus? Do extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist distribute communion at every Mass, regardless of the availability of a priest or deacon? Do you have lectors who emote dramatically when reading the word of God? Or cantors who so dominate the proceedings that they and the choir become the celebrants rather than the priest and the altar? Are there any prolonged periods of silence in the Mass or does an instrumentalist keep tinkling on the ivories or strumming a guitar? Does the priest ever choose the Roman canon instead of Eucharistic Prayer II or III or IV? I could go on and on. All of these things are abuses, by the way. The likelihood is that, sadly, you've never been taught that they're not allowed.
) I noted in some post up above somewhere that being in the presence of the labors of love of prior
generations in the Church humbles me, because it makes me reflect on my own paltry contributions. What have I done for my Church that those who follow after
will be able to share and to help them grow in their faith? I totally agree that every stitch and every chisel mark is a kind of prayer, and that being able
to see these puts us in touch with the communion of saints. The observation that some nuns who did the embroidery might have been cloistered against their
will does nothing to detract from this concept. To the contrary, it strengthens it, because we know that much of this treasure was created by people who
suffered in many ways: poverty, illness, dangerous working conditions, harsh treatment, yet they managed to create much beauty for the greater glory of God.