“Wherever applause breaks out in the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of liturgy has totally disappeared and been replaced by a kind of religious entertainment. Such attraction fades quickly – it cannot compete in the market of leisure pursuits, incorporating as it increasingly does various forms of religious titillation.” __ Pope Benedict XVI, The Spirit of the Liturgy. https://www.ewtn.com/pope/words/some_quotations.asp
The above quote from Pope Benedict XVI points to just one of the problems that plagues the Novus Ordo Liturgy; namely clapping, laughing and being entertained. For we have a host of novelties that are still emerging, that depend mostly on our own priest or bishop and the country where our parish is located.
If you have traveled a good deal and attended a Mass in another parish you can find a whole spectrum of novel practices that have become the standard culture of that particular parish and discover other practices which have swept the entire country. Some of these are now viewed as part of the instructions for the faithful; and our children grow up thinking that it is part of the Mass. All such novel practices have one thing in common; they put the laity in a mindset that the liturgy is foremost about themselves. And in such a state the liturgy is reduced to a joyful celebration of our wonderful selves. Thus, the essence of liturgy has totally disappeared, just as the Pope made clear in his above quote.
Here are just a few of the (now almost universal) novelties that have been enshrined in the liturgy here in the U.S.
- The saying of the Mass ad populum (towards the people): never called for but almost universally done.
- Reception of Holy Communion standing, in the hand: supposedly restricted to those countries who illicitly had become accustomed to this forbidden form of reception before the indult (permission) had been given by Pope Paul VI.
- The use of an inclusive language lectionary and Bible.
- The use of women lectors: another concession to the feminists.
- The use of girl altar servers: more of the same.
- The use of extraordinary ministers (including women; once again for the same reasons).
- The use of usherettes
- The elimination of the genuflection at the incarnatus est of the Creed; now even the small bow is rarely seen.
- The raising of the hands during the Our Father in the orans posture; giving the impression that we, like the priest, are the same which confuses the ordained ministry with that of the baptized.
- The cantor for the choir sings from the sanctuary.
- Gone is Gregorian Chant; the music of the Church has been lost almost entirely and replaced by modern sing song type pieces which are banal at their best.
I could go on but it is useless to detail all of the novelties and this does not include the things that are inherently disordered in the Mass itself.
In general there is no silence in Mass anymore; not before Mass begins, after Communion or even after the recession of the priest and his troup of boys and girls. So when do you have a chance to pray I wonder?
Then there are those things that only the most liberal parishes embrace such as liturgical dance and other oddities such as clown Masses or Bergoglio’s puppet Mass or tango Mass which you can see on youtube.
It simply proves that the essence of the liturgy has totally disappeared in the Novus Ordo Mass one typically attends on Sunday.
All Along the Watchtower 
The essence of the Liturgy is work in the theological definition. There must be a place for the laity to participate in that work within the frameworks of the common priesthood of all baptized Christians.
The structure of the ordinary form of the mass of Bl. Pope Paul VI in itself from the Liturgy of the Word to the Liturgy of the Eucharist to Common is the exact same structure as explained by St. Justin Martyr in his first apology:
“But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation.
Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands.
And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to ge’noito [so be it].
And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.”
In fact, the kiss of peace, like the sign of peace is completely missing from the TLM, should I presume the entire mass is illcit, as it does not hold to tradition?
The whole argument of language, I can never fully concede to this point. So, granted the mystery of faith, some of old rite Catholics equate ‘mystery’ with holiness–this is a false equivalence in my book. The preference for ancient languages understood by only a few because it helps create a mystery is absurd. As I’ve argued before the insistence on a language of a ‘few,’ or a secret knowledge, falls into the category of Gnosticism. It also further develops from this point deeper into the gnosis, as it appears to insist that the Holy Spirit cannot transcend language. Naturally, those who are in favor of ancient languages over the vernacular will insist that the faithful can simply learn the ancient language. It may be true that some can learn a handful of words here and there, but the reality is that most cannot learn a new language without total immersion. One cannot pray without fully knowing the words, One cannot work without the tools, and one cannot experience the leisure of their work when they are not able to enjoy the fruits of any labor.
The more I think about the Eucharist in hand in makes little to no sense in regards to the entire mystery of the Incarnation. Christ took flesh so that he could be accesible to us not merely to a special class. Furthermore, I still think it silly that the cup is denied in the TLM mass. I know you bring up the point that it was to prevent heresy, but don’t the priest have to consecrate the wine? Aren’t they in control of the species? If there were any abuse; it’s from the clergy–not the laity! Of course, that goes
In my parish, if it were not for girls, there would be no altar servers because parents would rather have their boys play baseball. More times than not, the Priest calls for servers in the congregation, and who answers the call? Not boys. So, would it be great to have boys up there? Sure, but the reality is that it’s not practical anymore. Furthermore, there’s nothing wrong with any baptized Christian–that includes women–reading from scripture. Woman do not take ‘essence’ of the work and leisure away in this regard.
The fundamental problem is a lack of catechism.
LikeLike
No loss of essence??? That religion, as it was in Judaism, is still a manly endeavor. It was not by mistake or ancient customs that God set this idea in motion. At least not in my mind. For had it been left to women, men would not become priests now nor would they get involved in religion. But when left to men, women do participate. It is in the nature of male and females that God decided rightly on this separation. It is also of the nature of women that they are looked upon as desirable in looks and anatomy; not so for men. So I assume you find it offensive that there are not women priests? It is the obvious end to the progression from women confusing their baptismal ministry with the ordained. Once it is established nobody will care as we have already seen with the Episcopalians and now the Anglicans in the UK.
Now as to participation: you have taken Latin and should well know the difference between actuosa and active. Mediator Dei and Sacrosanctum Concillium both use the word actuosa and not activa and yet they choose activa (or physical activity) to justify the changes made to Mass. It was not physical activity that the Council or Pope Pius XII desired but interior participation as in in prayer or contemplation. It is essentially something interior which has been lost and banal activity has taken its place.
Now liturgical language is heightened language since we are speaking to God. It is not simply mundane though it was the vulgar language of the time for Rome. But it is what unites us just as the fermentum at each Mass is to show us that this Mass is connected to the Mass of the Pope. The Jews have continued to use their liturgical language and the Eastern Church has used their liturgical language and it becomes part of their identity . . . their Jewish or Christian culture. We threw away our culture after Vatican II and the Council foolishly thought that even the New Mass would be said both in the vernacular (meaning the native or inculturated tongue) and in Latin. If you look at a Sacramentally the Latin is there if any priest would like to say it; the vernacular is merely an indult. So the language of the Church is gone and if you want to destroy a culture all you need to do is destroy its culture and language is a surefire way to do it. Now we are likely to hear Spanish Masses Bilingual Masses (completely confused) and of course the only real vernacular in the US, English.
As for the kiss of peace. Nobody would have minded if it had been placed at the beginning or the end of Mass. But it is unnecessary and thus an option to be used or not used per the priest of the Novus Ordo.
LikeLike
In 2nd to last paragraph: not sacramentally but SACRAMENTARY.
LikeLike
By the way, in regards to active participation:
“So varied and diverse are men’s talents and characters that it is impossible for all to be moved and attracted to the same extent by community prayers, hymns and liturgical services. Moreover, the needs and inclinations of all are not the same, nor are they always constant in the same individual. Who, then, would say, on account of such a prejudice, that all these Christians cannot participate in the Mass nor share its fruits? On the contrary, they can adopt some other method which proves easier for certain people; for instance, they can lovingly meditate on the mysteries of Jesus Christ or perform other exercises of piety or recite prayers which, though they differ from the sacred rites, are still essentially in harmony with them.“ (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei)
LikeLike
I believe in the same encyclical launched all of the reforms of Vatican II that Pius XII help shape that the Liturgy is changing and not static.
“Many of the faithful are unable to use the Roman missal even though it is written in the vernacular; nor are all capable of understanding correctly the liturgical rites and formulas.” (108)”
Hence my claim that Catechesis is the issue with the loss of essence in the Liturgy.
“Who, then, would say, on account of such a prejudice, that all these Christians cannot participate in the Mass nor share its fruits?
Maybe this indicates a role for women? Ever entertained that analysis?
“On the contrary, they can adopt some other method which proves easier for certain people; for instance, they can lovingly meditate on the mysteries of Jesus Christ or perform other exercises of piety or recite prayers which, though they differ from the sacred rites, are still essentially in harmony with them.”
Is this not a call for a change in hr Liturgy to remove static ritual to revive the essence of the Liturgy?
Or this ?
“You recall .. how the divine Master expels from the sacred temple, as unworthy to worship there, people who pretend to honor God with nothing but neat and good sounding phrases, like actors in a theater, and think themselves perfectly capable of working out their eternal salvation without plucking their vices from their hearts.”
Sounds like mere Liturgists rather than divine worship?
Pius XII actually set the foundation of all the changes in the mass, whether you and I agree with them or not.
Furthermore, women lay participants and female ordination are not equivalents—a red herring.
LikeLike
Speaking of red herrings. Are you really ready to hypothesize the meanings of the paragraphs of Mediator Dei in a way that makes them somehow conform to the changes in the Novus Ordo that the “spirit of” crowd pushed and we have now? That is pure conjecture on your part and has not evidence anywhere. Pius XII, John XXIII and even Pius VI never thought that this was going to be the outcome of a ‘reform’ of the Mass.
Funny how all this (activa) participation now takes place and the (actuosa) is not, don’t you think?
As far as women participating: they actually did participate (actuosa) along with the men in the pews in the old Mass. I don’t recall reading any negatives from our pre-Vatican II parents in the faith about these things. It was done by Modernist liturgists just about the same time as the feminist movement began to take off in the 70’s and they used it to their advantage. Now it is all about egalitarianism.
The point that is obvious about the quotation from Mediator Dei is that the thing many people were complaining about (people who said the rosary during Mass) was not only OK but laudable. You seem to have taken it to its progressivist end and have voted to change the original actuosa to activa as the liturgists did; quite on purpose I might add.
LikeLike
There’s no reason by admitting that the actuosa which granted merely by baptism should be solely preferred. It is fitting that one can participate both by actousa and activa. There’s nothing in Pius XII document and others Popes.
For each age, the activities deemed by a particular age to be useful in promoting that participation have varied according to the needs and ideas of the period. Active participation is not an invention of the spirit of Vatican II.
LikeLike
You say there’s nothing in Mediator Dei that indicates only one form of participation. By omission you would be right just as in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of Vatican II. However both, in their final form in Latin, both use the word actuosa and not activa. So the actual words only speak of one type of participation and it is not the one that you or the liturgists want to agree with.
LikeLike
SC developed the idea in the document of “Participatio Actuosa.”
“it is also their duty to ensure that the faithful take part fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects.” Again, the loss of essence is from a lack of catechesis—people do not understand the Mass.
LikeLike
Agreed. And have you ever tried to get a priest to allow you to run a class and explain all the various parts of the Mass and their intent? They don’t want it. They entertain and coddle us as if we were the center of the liturgy. They are more interested in pleasing any activist from feminism to LGBT’s to those who disagree on contraception and other items they may take offense to. And the alter Christus is now our friend, Fr. Bob but not a priest with an indelible character that represents Christ on the altar. It is totally dumbed down to the lowest denomination. It is a place where we play out the same social changes taking place in our secular world. It was never a place of such social experiments before. It was separate from our workaday world. We were drug up to Heaven for an hour a week instead of dragging God down to our level. We can do better.
LikeLike
Bl. Paul VI advocated for more Catechesis to deaf ears right after SC. Sacram Liturgiam January 1964: “to set at once about teaching their people the power and the interior worth of the Sacred Liturgy, taking into account their age, condition in life, and standard of religious culture,”
LikeLike
Already present in the older form. They do not even come close in achieving this in the Novus Ordo. Paul VI also lamented about what was going on in the Mass but was too timid to take any action. You should read some of the excellent analysis that Dietrich von Hildebrand made concerning this. I can type out a few of these observations for you if you do want to read some of what he said.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Instead of looking for the links I have a book with two of his long quotes and I will copy them in a new window, so look for them because I don’t want a narrow box that will take up too much real estate. 🙂
LikeLike
And your response to this?
“I am convinced that the crisis in the Church that we are experiencing is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy . . . when the community of faith, the worldwide unity of the Church and her history, and the mystery of the living Christ are no longer visible in the liturgy, where else, then, is the Church to become visible in her spiritual essence? Then the community is celebrating only itself, an activity that is utterly fruitless.” __ Joseph Ratzinger, Milestones, pp. 148-149, published by Ignatius Press 1998.
It is basically all that I am trying to say with far fewer words.
LikeLike
I believe that fundamentally as man is made in the image of God. Breakdown occurs when we no longer respect the sacrament of the body—the dignity afforded to the act and to the person. In this we hold both the activa and the actuosa.
So, what is the essence of the Liturgy? It’s prayer isn’t it? So why seek to limit it? Even in the TLM, prior to Vatican II, Bishops were implementing response masses.
LikeLike
Not to this extent. There was plenty of time for prayer and it led one to Christ whether one was advance or a neophyte in prayer.
Try this explanation, for I am very confused about what your argument truly consists:: http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2018/05/divergent-political-models-in-two-forms.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheNewLiturgicalMovement+%28New+Liturgical+Movement%29#.Wvn1Vi_MyRs
LikeLike
It all hinges on Catechism, people have to learn what they are doing, and most people in the pews have little idea.
LikeLike
Indeed that is something on which we agree. And the points I have tried to articulate in this piece has to do with what has been taught as well as that which has been untaught but was recognized even by the peasants in the old Church.
LikeLike
I understand your concerns, I do. I’ll even go so far as I’ve told others that your points specifically on Extraordinary Ministers are fairly ironclad, but I simply do not believe that vernacular is something causes a loss the essence of the mass, or lectors, female lectors. Latin use to be the Vernacular when it was still a living language. If one goes to an Anglican Ordinate, which is vernacular, it holds to its liturgical essence. And if you can come convince the parents of the boys in the parish to honor their commitment to being Altar Servers over playing sports, I’d even back you on it as well.
LikeLike
Of course my article did not mention Latin at all but you seem to have gone back to previous comments we have had about this. I would submit that any language is the spoken language when first introduced. But the point in staying with a language is to cement the reality of One Church. Hebrew is the same thing and they would not be who they are if they did not use it in their liturgies. We have given away our heritage without much of a fight.
Not to mention that you cannot, in the age of travel, go anywhere and celebrate the same Mass as you do at home. We had that and it unified us. The Orthodox Jews can do the same as can the Eastern Rites of our Church. Their liturgies have not changed their holy language of worship.
And of course simply hearing the liturgy in your own language might be helpful but then in our Catholic Schools (as in Yeshiva) the children learn their worship services in the language of their heritage. If it was only the language that the Novus Ordo was about then we wouldn’t have nearly 5000 iterations of the Mass that can be said and in fact all they needed to do was say what was already written on the right side of the Missals in the vernacular. If the people couldn’t do that even after being taught for years all the parts of the Mass in their own native tongues then there is not much that I can say other than we must of had schools that didn’t teach English. If it is important to people to understand the Mass then there was nothing that was preventing them other than their obstinance.
LikeLike
Here is a new battle that I have confronted in my parish whether folks agree with me or not, here is the email I sent my pastor on Sunday.
Dear Father,
Although we have an indult to say the Novus Ordo in the ‘vernacular’ per the documents of Vatican II, it seems that the word vernacular no longer means what it really means which is native and indigenous language. It is bad enough that we seem to think that we must have Spanish Masses when I don’t see Masses in German, French, Lithuanian, Scandinavian or any other language nor does any other country to my knowledge make exceptions for English if I become a citizen of their country. But worse is the mixing of languages that we see in the ‘so-called’ bilingual Masses that are nothing more than complete pandemonium. But that is me since it seems that our Bishops are more intent on teaching Spanish to their seminarians than the language of the Church which would remedy every problem that is rampant in the modern church.
For the Summer months, due to this novel bilingual Mass that has invaded us for the 2nd year in our parish history, I will choose to send my weekly tithes to seminaries that train their priests to say the traditional Mass in Latin. Summorum Pontificum is absolutely without any use to us who are more than distressed and saddened by the destruction of Catholic Culture and especially the dignity and reverence due to Our Lord in the Liturgy of the Holy Mass. So being given hope by Pope Benedict XVI it is useless to expect changes when the Bishops have made sure that the ‘extraordinary’ form or Mass cannot be said for lack of ability. It almost seems that this was planned by the periti who pushed for the ‘spirit of Vatican Ii’ changes that we now have to suffer through.
I can anticipate your explanations for the novel bilingual Masses but this is something that I cannot, for the sake of conscience, support with my money.
Sorry for being a pain in your backside,
Dave
LikeLike
Also, to answer you question concerning the problem of parents and boys not answering the call or commitment to being altar servers I contend that it is because they are no longer seeing it as a commitment since they no longer see the function of an altar server is a special privilege that only a boy can fulfill. If they had been drawn into the participation actuosa then they both might be drawn not only to service at the altar as a young boy but also participation later in life as a priest. This was where our Church inspired the next generation of priests. How do you do that with a mix of boys and girls, poorly formed in their duties at the altar but also starved for the holiness that the ancient Mass filled their souls with.
My young friend who has been turned down at both the Institute of Christ the King and at the FSSP has seen the difference in the competition for a spot in their seminaries. They have more aspirants than they have spots while our diocesan seminaries are almost empty. There is something wrong whether people see it or not. We had a miserable show this past year with the number of priests ordained into the Novus Ordo Church. Is this because they are different kids or is it because the liturgy itself does not inspire them?
LikeLike
Here is Hildebrand:
The basic error of most of the innovators is to imagine that the new liturgy brings the holy Sacrifice of the Mass nearer to the faithful, that shorn of its old rituals the Mass now enters into the substance of lives. For the question is whether we better meet Christ in the Mass by soaring up to Him, or by dragging Him down into our own pedestrian, workaday world. The innovators would replace holy intimacy with Christ by an unbecoming familiarity. The new liturgy actually threatens to frustrate the confrontation with Christ, for it discourages reverence in the face of mystery; precludes awe, and all but extinguishes a sense of sacredness. What really matters, surely, is not whether the faithful feel at home at Mass, but whether they are drawn out of their ordinary lives into the world of Christ — whether their attitude is the response of ultimate reverence: whether they re imbued with the reality of Christ. __ Triumph Magazine, October 1966.
+++
I think of all the saints that were made by the old Mass; both intellects and simple men.
+++
They seem to be unaware of the elementary importance of sacredness in religion. Thus, they dull the sense of the sacred and thereby undermine true religion. Their “democratic” approach makes them overlook the fact that in all men who have a longing for God there is also a longing for the sacred and a sense of difference between the sacred and the profane. The worker or peasant has this sense as much as any intellectual. If he is a Catholic, he will desire to find a sacred atmosphere in the church, and this remains true whether the world is urban, industrial or not . . . Many priests believe that replacing the sacred atmosphere that reigns, for example, in the marvelous churches of the Middle Ages or the baroque epoch, and in which the Latin Mass was celebrated, with a profane functionalism, neutral, humdrum atmosphere will enable the Church to encounter the simple man in charity. But this is a fundamental error. It will not fulfill his deepest longing; it will merely offer him stones for bread. Instead of combatting the irreverence so widespread today these priests are actually helping to propagate this irreverence. __ Dietrich von Hildebrand, Trojan Horse in the City of God, 1969, p. 135.
LikeLike
And more from Pope Benedict XVI:
“Not surprisingly, people try to reduce this newly created role by assigning all kinds of liturgical functions to different individuals and entrusting the “creative” planning of the Liturgy to groups of people who like to, and are supposed to, “make a contribution of their own”. Less and less is God in the picture. More and more important is what is done by the human beings who meet here and do not like to subject themselves to a “pre-determined pattern”.” (Spirit of Liturgy, ch. 3)
“The liturgical reform, in its concrete realization, has distanced itself even more from its origin. The result has not been a reanimation, but devastation. In place of the liturgy, fruit of a continual development, they have placed a fabricated liturgy. They have deserted a vital process of growth and becoming in order to substitute a fabrication. They did not want to continue the development, the organic maturing of something living through the centuries, and they replaced it, in the manner of technical production, by a fabrication, a banal product of the moment.” (Ratzinger in Revue Theologisches, Vol. 20, Feb. 1990, pgs. 103-104)
LikeLike
The use of girl altar servers: more of the same.
The use of extraordinary ministers (including women; once again for the same reasons).
The use of usherettes
What in the world is going on here. Uhserettes and females doing other things? Oh my god what is this wicked world coming to. The church that Christ founded must stamp out female participation with iron boots. Never mind that the first evangelist was a female. We catholics hate what the bible has to say and only love what men have to say.
LikeLike