Thoughts on the Use of the Pre-Conciliar Mass

Mr. John Heavren, in his comment on the first post on this blog, asked us to clarify our "Tridentine" status, meaning, I think, where we stand on the issue. I will leave CatholicNerd to post his own views because I am not sure we entirely agree on the issue, but I will be happy to explain my thoughts on the matter.

I think the pre-Conciliar Mass, aka Tridentine Mass, was a good and a beautiful thing. I also agree with Council, which thought it needed reform. Unfortunately, the "reform" which actually happened at the diocesan and parish level left the average Roman Catholic parish with a liturgy that is severely lacking in reverence, beauty, and mystery. This problem created a variety of responses among Catholics who missed these aspects of the pre-Conciliar Mass. One response was schism (obviously not a very good or helpful response). Another response was to request permission to continue to use the pre-Conciliar form, and to create societies like the FSSP. A third response was to call for a "reform of the reform," to go back to the Council's original intentions of reforming the Mass of Trent, instead of rendering it nearly unrecognizable. I am in this third camp.

My reasons for not belonging to the first camp are simple--I am a member of the Body of Christ, and I submit myself to Pope and the bishops, whose authority comes from Christ. The second school of thought, though, is more complex. Though it seems to be a pretty unified group, there is more than one side to their thinking. Some tridentinists (is that a word?) are nostalgic. This group is shrinking rapidly. Others believe that the English translation of the Mass currently in use is invalid or at least suspect--which to my mind is little better than schism. It's not the best translation possible, but it is approved and we should work with it until we get something
better. Still others are looking for a beautiful and reverent Mass, and think that this is the easiest or the only way to find it. They are of the mindset that if we remind people of how things used to be, perhaps they will go back to it. This is what I really object to.

Continuing to use the pre-Conciliar Mass in parishes is an impediment to gaining a more reverenty celebrated post-Conciliar Mass. What happens, in my limited experience, is that the really conservative people who are concerned about issues of liturgical abuse go to the Tridentine Mass, and everyone else goes to the Novus Ordo Mass, including some very devout people who are not educated on these issues, or who, like my father, are intimidated by a Mass totally in Latin which isn't always easy to follow.

In addition to this, while some priests celebrate the pre-Conciliar Mass with great care and reverence, assisted by altar servers and a schola who sing the chants beautifully, others don't. The Tridentine Mass, while unfailingly formal and solemn (lack of this is a big problem in the Novus Ordo), can still be ugly. It is deficient in beauty when there is no singing at all. It is distracting when the single altar server is badly trained, and the lady in the pew next to you is rattling her rosary. It is harsh on the ears when the priest rushes everything, has terrible Latin pronunciation, and through these and simple lack of care uses wrong endings on words, wrong words, and words that don't actually exist in Latin. I've been to Masses like this, and I really don't think that this is any better than the Novus Ordo Mass where the priest improvises on a few of the prayers and the choir sings awful pop-influenced music.

To my mind, the best option would be to remove the pre-Conciliar Mass from regular parishes. This removes much of the possibility of abuse of it by priests, or overuse by people who think it is an easy solution to problems with the post-Conciliar Mass. We have had the Council, and the Council said we needed change, and now we cannot go back. We can, however, go far enough back to correct the mistakes made during the revisionary process. Having the pre-Conciliar Mass available in regular parishes is an impediment to making this revision because it is seen as an "easy" solution, an escapist solution. But trying to escape from your problems will not help you solve them. Instead, I would advocate preserving the form of that Mass in a few places by a few priests, such as members of the FSSP. In fact, I would advocate the use of several historical forms and rites of the Mass in particular settings, but for regular use in Roman parishes, there ought to be a standard.

I will not attempt to say now what I think should be re-revised. I hope that I have laid out my thoughts on this subject in a coherent fashion. If anyone disagrees, I would like to hear your reasons.

Audacious, but Well-Done

Matthew at the Shrine of the Holy Whapping is putting forward his own proposal for a compromise between the pre- and post-Conciliar Masses, with a few revisions and additions of his own. He has called it the Karolingian Mass, in honor of Karol Wotyla (for some reason he doesn't like the sound of Ioannopauline):
Introduction
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V

I respect Matt's proposal, because I think it is well-thought out, and provides an excellent starting point for discussion about liturgical use and abuse, beauty, functionality, mystery, historical precedent, and pastoral sensitivity. Many volumes have been written complaining about various aspects of both new and old Masses, but I don't recall ever seeing someone actually lay out what his ideal Mass would look like in quite this fashion.