[quote=arch_angelorum]Here we go again…
so for starters, I’m not a crazy traditionalistic fanatic and I am not disapraging (I think it should be asperging ) or whatever it is the Novus Ordo mass.
However, I just want to know how this all started since I wasn’t around at the time say 30-40 years ago.
Ok, so suddenly in the 1960’s, the priest at your local parish gets two altar servers to put a table in front of the high altar to celebrate mass there facing you? How did everyone react? It’s almost like the holy Mass of all things was treated as an experiment, kind of like “we’ll mess around and see wut we get out of it.”
For starters I find the very idea of putting together a new mass discomforting- the reasons:
the old mass was fine, it was beautiful, so rich and deep, transcendant. This has nothing to do with latin- by all means, use the vernacular but why change the words of the mass?
I know people will say that liturgical abuses also happened in the TLM and that the ones occuring today are not a product of the new mass. I could see that POV but at the same time, I don’t see how facign the people is a good thing. When everyone is facing the Crucifix, statues, and the altar, then everyone is doing the same thing. Too many times I’ve heard it being said that it SEEMS that the priest is a “showman”.
The best Novus Ordo mass there is in my neck of the woods is downtown church of Holy Family and church of St. Vincent de Paul run by the Oratory of St. Phillip Neri. They are Vatican II traditional priests. They celebrate one TLM valid Sung Mass, another sung mass in english with gregorian chants set in english and sacred polyphony. The only thing left is to turn the altar around…
Sorry, I had to quote your entire post because it is very complex and I have to continually refer to it. First of all, let me say that I was around 30 or 40 years ago. You are correct in stating that there was a period of time when there was experimentation. It was never official, and a lot of it was never a good idea to say the least, but it was in terms of human failings perhaps in charity understandable.
To understand the enthusiastic acceptance of the change by virtuallly all priests at that time (most priests at least in the US were desperate for something like this and shouted Hallelujah when it happened), you have to understand that the Traditional Mass had been performed in the most perfunctory manner on most occasions for many generations. It was not unheard of for a Mass to be over in 20 minutes because the priest (who only approximately understood the Latin even after years of study) and the altar boys (who didn’t understand it at all and might as well be saying mumbo jumbo) spoke as fast as possible. After all, God can understand even mispronounced Latin spoken by someone who does not understand spoken at the speed of a 45 rpm record played at 78, can’t he? That was the actual reasoning back then, and I am not making this up out of a sense of sarcasm.
It was the need for a church of the people and not an elite (because they always had their solemn Masses) to appear to be something other than a magical means of turning wafers into Jesus that motivated the move to a new order. It was the need to replace the subtle irreverance and yes, abuse, of the Traditional Latin rite that prompted reform. In identifying the older rite with something beautiful and transcendent as opposed to what we have now, you are overlooking the fact that both rites had basically the same problem, but for different reasons. On top of that, in the US if not in Europe, there was little attention paid to aesthetics in the older rite. Anyone with any sense that aesthetics are important in worship because they honor God would have cringed as much in any TLM service of the day as they do today, though perhaps for different reasons. And this would have been true even in many grand churches and cathedrals.
Do I love the Novus Ordo? No, of course. It stinks, to be blunt about it, and for many reasons. It can be tolerated because if it is celebrated without abuses it is both licit and valid, but it is a mess rather than a Mass in so many ways, at least in its current English translation. But has the Church traded one set of problems for another? In my opinion, absolutely.