N TEXAS, I knew a woman who was (technically) royalty by birth in France. She grew up in France, her large family was 100% Roman Catholic, and she was related to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. She came to the United States when she married a wealthy Texas landowner. She was very active in HUMAN LIFE INTERNATIONAL (a pro-life organization). This lady was no dunce. She had degrees from various universities across the globe, and earned a doctorate cum laude in medicine. In spite of all that, I spent several years trying to explain to her that the VATICAN II HYMNAL was for the Ordinary Form (not the Traditional Latin Mass). I was never successful in making her understand that. In her mind, because it contained some Latin it couldn’t possibly be for the Novus Ordo.1 This little anecdote will give you some idea of how confusing the post-conciliar reforms were—even to highly educated Catholics who had every advantage in life.
A Reminder • The Second Vatican Council solemnly declared: “The liturgy is the summit [culmen] toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the source [fons] from which all her power emanates.” Vatican II didn’t say: “We desire for the sacred liturgy to be modified beyond recognition; once that happens it will become the source and summit.” Vatican II didn’t declare: “The current liturgy we have isn’t the source and summit because it’s profoundly deficient—but after it’s been massively overhauled we want the faithful to participate in it, although many of us won’t live to witness or approve these changes.” [We recall that major liturgical changes weren’t introduced until almost a decade after SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM.]
How Do I Know? • How can I be certain the reformers went well beyond what Vatican II intended? Who am I to make such a judgment? What do I know? I could answer that question in many different ways … but the most powerful answer has to do with the following website:
If you click on those folders, you’ll discover literally hundreds of scores that needed to be created—and I’m not even 1/4 finished. Here’s the bottom line: there’s no way such a massive overhaul was intended by SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM.
(1 of 3) REFORM OF THE REFORM • Someday, all this will have to be straightened out. In spite of what certain click-hungry bloggers claim, the “Reform of the Reform” isn’t dead. Far from it! Every week I meet young priests doing their best to promote reverence in the sacred liturgy. Many times on this blog, I have suggested we need to start producing a ‘hybrid’ Missal. Such an effort should stress the elements of unity between EF and OF, and choose options and feasts that are more traditional. We must begin this project as soon as possible, because it needs to be finished when the time comes. In many cases, it will be a matter of providing traditional formularies for each Sunday, while making the other stuff “optional.” [I believe the technical name for this would be: “Letting a thousand flowers bloom.”]
(2 of 3) REFORM OF THE REFORM • Will I live to see the day when the 1960s reformers’ excesses have been corrected? Perhaps not; but my children will. It goes without saying the current environment is not suitable for a full-blown REFORM OF THE REFORM. One of the problems believe it or not has to do with certain voices who consider themselves “ultra-traditionalists.” These people don’t really understand what was great and powerful about the traditional liturgy. Unfortunately, some of them are just contrarian grifters.2
(3 of 3) REFORM OF THE REFORM • Chesterton wrote in 1910: “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; rather, it has been found difficult and left untried.” When it comes to the TLM, certain voices (who claim to be its strongest defenders) have never really experienced it—at least not fully. Please note: I’m not saying they wouldn’t like it. I’m saying they haven’t experienced it. A few examples:
(a) Many priests offer the TLM in the afternoon or evening—such a thing would have been unthinkable in the olden days.
(b) Many of the so-called “ECCLESIA DEI groups” celebrate Vespers followed by Mass—such a thing would have been unthinkable in the olden days.
(c) Many liturgical practices in the 1962 Missal aren’t really traditional: having a “High Mass” with incense sans Deacon & Subdeacon; letting the priest listen as the Deacon proclaims the Gospel instead of reading it sotto voce at the altar first; etc.
(d) Reception of Holy Communion by anyone except the priest himself—especially during a Sung Mass, Wedding Mass, or Funeral Mass—was quite rare in the olden days. The laity would normally receive Holy Communion outside of Mass, before Mass, after Mass, or even while Mass was happening (at a side altar or the rail). For 10 years, I was choirmaster at one of the largest FSSP parishes in the world. We had five Masses on Sunday, and for some of them “Communion time” lasted 45 minutes. Such a thing would have been unthinkable in the olden days. Please note: I’m not agreeing or disagreeing. I’m simply pointing out this would have been exceedingly rare in the olden days—especially during a Solemn Mass. Is it truly a significant modification to “import” or “create” or “insert” a 45-minute ceremony into the TLM? I will not insult the reader’s intelligence by giving the answer! Once we become aware of the true situation, we can understand why the progressive liturgist, Father Josef A. Jungmann, wrote in 1950: “In light of Mediator Dei [Pope Pius XII’s liturgical encyclical] one can more readily understand why the Communion of the faithful should if at all possible take place during holy Mass itself.”
(e) The 1962 Holy Week—as it is celebrated by most “ECCLESIA DEI groups”—is a subject that would take too long to address. However, I worked with many priests who pushed hard for a return to the 1950 Holy Week. (I also knew FSSP priests, including seminary professors, who vehemently opposed a return to the 1950 Holy Week.) I was shocked to discover that many had no clue whatsoever what the differences between the 1950 and the 1962 actually were. Indeed, many “terminally-online” voices pushing for the 1950 version make basic errors regarding the differences. A person cannot “ardently desire” something which he can neither recognize nor describe.3
(f) Even those who consider themselves liturgical experts sometimes inadvertently demonstrate ignorance vis-à-vis the TLM. I remember an article in which one such voice passionately insisted that the Easter Vigil was the “crown jewel of all TLM feasts.” This is sheer nonsense. Indeed, the Easter Vigil was traditionally quite penitential. It has less music than any other Mass! Even the lowest ferial Mass (!!!) has more music than the Easter Vigil. Certain TLM communities—which shall remain nameless!—pull out all the stops for the Easter Vigil (including singing the prophecies, which is totally untraditional) and then are so exhausted they have Low Masses on Easter Sunday.4 Such a perspective is completely backwards. Until the 1950s, the Easter Vigil didn’t even fulfill the obligation to attend Mass on Easter, and the local bishop often did not attend. (These facts give us some clues.)
Conclusion • I’m sure I’ll get nasty emails accusing me of “attacking” the TLM. But I did no such thing. I cannot praise the TLM highly enough; both the High Mass and also the (beautiful, peaceful, and pure) Low Mass. I’m merely pointing out that great liturgical confusion exists, even among voices who consider themselves “ultra-traditionalists.” They used to joke that the difference between a terrorist and a liturgist is that “you can reason with a terrorist.” In terms of a fundamental and deep REFORM OF THE REFORM, it’s difficult to envision that having any chance of success until things cool down. Emotions are just too high at this point in time.
Feel free to email me, telling me I’m dead wrong!
…but when you do, please be specific in your critique of what I have written.
1 I remember pointing out to her (very patiently) that the Ordinary Form had three liturgical years, whereas the TLM only had just one. It made no difference. She was convinced the VATICAN II HYMNAL was only for the TLM. Indeed, she would often ask: “Jeffrey, when are you planning to produce a book for the Ordinary Form?”
2 Contrarian grifters will never cease to exist. They disagree with everyone else for the sake of disagreement. This isn’t limited to the liturgical sphere. For example, there are still people who say the earth is flat.
3 I have a huge collection of screenshots exposing certain online voices who look down on other Catholics (whom they consider “liturgical Philistines”). These screenshots catch them in egregious errors vis-à-vis the sacred liturgy. Maybe someday I’ll release these screenshots … but what good would result from such a decision?
4 I am not speaking of an incident that happened once; I’m speaking of something that happened year after year. All the emphasis is placed on the Easter Vigil, which is celebrated late at night on Holy Saturday, whereas traditionally it was celebrated on Holy Saturday morning. As a consequence, Easter Sunday is celebrated very poorly (with low attendance). This untraditional approach has become “traditional” in many TLM communities—which is truly unfortunate. The Easter Vigil itself has a history which is complicated but fascinating. A wonderful ‘overview’ is given in the Campion Missal, 3rd edition (Sophia Institute Press).
