I agree with your premise, but not with your conclusion.
If you have attended the different traditional masses (FSSP, SSPX, Christ the King) they all have different feels to them. I would argue that they -are- developing different traditions. I would also argue that the different locales are slowly beginning to develop different traditions as they're allowed.
This latter is especially slow because very few of the peoples actually move to develop a Polity around the parish. Few move within walking distance. Few participate in daily Catholic parish life. Few make it a priority.
And, to be fair, this is not aided by the Parishes themselves. They often are put in dilapidated Churches, bad parts of town, or other situations where it is difficult for families to justify moving there. So they don't. They don't focus on uplifting the neighborhood. Evangelizing.
And so, the flock remains scattered, weak, and traditions are slow to build, if ever they do.
But, this is no different than a NO mass. In fact, I would say even scattered Latin masses still attempt more tradition than NO from what I've seen - doing events on feast days and all they can when they do gather, and events in between. As much as they can, they do.
Hi Uncouth, thanks for your engagement, as always! I am sorry not to have responded yet, I thought I had. I think my conclusion may be less strong than you thought. I have indeed attended old rite celebrations of the ICRSS, SSPX, FSSP across multiple provinces, and diocesan priests, as well as having attended Dominican Rite Masses from two different provinces of Dominicans. They are beautiful, and I wish they were more widespread.
I agree that the different Latin Mass communities have different feels to them and are developing different traditions, under some interpretations of that phrase. However, I do not agree that the tradition can develop properly. As long as the Church has the 1962 Missal locked down, the old rite cannot add new saints to the calendar, change red-letter rubrics, etc., all of which are needed with time. As an example, the calendar had gotten so clogged up by the time of Pius X, that (while I can't remember the specific numbers) there were very few days a year where green vestments were worn, and very few days a week where the psalter was prayed in its order.
I agree that the current situation of the Latin Mass parishes is a bigger concern than their liturgy. I think that it results from the liturgy though, as it tends to attract a group that is overly-focussed on liturgical change. In general, Latin Mass parishes (while having many amazing parishioners and many amazing priests) cannot be healthy "polities" (as you have discussed with Ryan in the replies to this comment), as they gather people who live 2h away and only come together for that liturgy. You can see this imbalance also in the fact that Latin Mass parishes tend to have a gender ratio significantly skewed towards young men (who are more likely to have tunnel vision or autism).
My dream would be for the Church to go back to one rite and split parishes geographically, which would result in far more tightly-bound communities. This requires consolidating back down to one liturgical rite and everyone attending their neighbourhood church. I understand why that's not happening now - likely, your nearest church has a weak community, an overworked priest who's only there one day a week, and is on the verge of closing. My dream would probably be that we interpret the 1910-2020 changes as experiments, revert back to pre-Divino Afflatu, look at what worked and what didn't, and then implement the good changes only, but loosen rules for bishops to live out subsidiarity in their dioceses' liturgy. I doubt that will happen though, so we'll just have to see what God is calling us to do in our situations.
I think one important thing to note - I am writing about what WE should do. Given that we are not bishops or popes (I assume that's the case for you, it is for me :) the question is what we should do in our own situation. That's why I don't write about politics or whether the Church should revert to pre-Divino Afflatu liturgy. I am not condemning that interpretation of traditionalism. Instead, my goal is to write about our own attitudes, and how they should be.
I think your point about "develop a Polity" is the driver behind what develops a tradition in the first place. Culture grows organically from communities - which is not the same as the modern 'faith community' who drive into the parish from their hermetic McMansion 20 minutes away. That's generally how traditions develop, and the issue is that traditions without continuity do stagnate
I would agree whole heartedly, seeing it in action. When you live close enough to celebrate and gather for traditions for the more 'minor' feasts, you do so, and traditions are born. A neighbor hosts potlucks, stories, a fire, pie competitions, whatever - for those minor feast days. Candlemas, St Martin's day, All Saints Day, etc.
The whole calendar comes alive, and the community with it.
The 1962 Mass Catholic continues to be updated by the Vatican, as it has been for the past 63 years. As the liturgical calender has changed so did the Mass.
It's a rather Puritan stance you take here as there is an underlying assumption that "external" ritual is meaningless for those who participate. Do not be a "traditionalist." Great. Follow your conscience. Learn more though, and perhaps appreciate what has been stripped away.
What do you mean that the "1962 Mass Catholic continues to be updated?" The only major update I know of was the Traditiones Custodes requirement to have the readings in the vernacular. The 1962 Mass is not updated by the Vatican, and (as far as I am aware) there are no major Latin Mass groups which celebrate with a calendar with any updates past 1962.
I do not appreciate the comment "Learn more and appreciate what has been stripped away." I do not know why you are accusing me of ignorance or of taking a Puritanical stance (by which I assume you mean an anti-ritualism?). I believe that there is great value in external ritual and I know about and am appreciative of things that have sadly been stripped away (eg, the minor absolution, offertory prayers, censoring of collects, imprecatory psalter removal, near-universal ad orientem, and many other things). Changes should have been made in a more thought out way - and, were that to have happened, far fewer changes would have occurred.
I do not have a quarrel with the Latin Mass or with tradition. My argument is against a false religion of traditionalISM, which prioritises the stasis of things which lead us to God above God himself. There is only one ISM I subscribe to, Catholicism.
You specifically told me to appreciate things, and I responded that I did. I am disappointed to see that you ignored my clarification and questions and, instead, responded with a childish insult (which doesn't make much sense, as I generally attend a Latin Mass). I hope that in future interactions you will engage more humanely!
I take a different view. I agree with the conclusion, but only partially with the argument.
I agree with your basic argument that traditions must evolve, but like UB I don’t think this necessarily implies the trad attitude is incorrect.
However, I do question the existence of “old” and “new” rites, or at least the point at which the old became the new. There have been many typical editions of the Missale Romanum. The first generation of traditionalists asked for the retention of the 1962 missal, but many of their successors now prefer the 1945 missal with the pre 1955 Holy Week services. Other traditionalists reject the changes made by S Pius X. Terms such as “Latin Mass”, “traditional Mass”, “TLM” are ambiguous; to which edition of the missal do they refer?
We must also add to this the timescale at which changes were introduced in different places. Continental European churches introduced features such as vernacular prayers, dialogue Masses and celebration versus populum decades before late adopters such as the UK. These distinctions are still preserved in traditionalist attitudes. Children from France attending a “TLM” in England are often shocked at how different it is. Mass celebrated by the institute of Christ the King in the UK is very different from that celebrated at S Trinita dei Pellegrini in Rome.
And so I disagree with your statement that the traditional rite has remained unchanged for 63 years. The printed words on the pages of previous editions of the missal may not have changed, but the “Old rite Mass” as it is experienced in practice is in flux. And the supporting attitudes and arguments of the traditionalists, often now flatly contradict the positions they held 30/40 years ago.
This, then, is one of my reasons for not joining the traditionalists. They recognise that the 1962 missal is unsatisfactory, which is why they campaigned for use of the pre 55 Holy Week. But simultaneously they realise that change was needed, so they keep some aspects of 1962, and freely add more modern elements. The result is neither a retention of a tradition they received personally, nor a genuine return to an identifiable previous version of the Mass, but rather the creation of a new, bespoke liturgy within a culture which little resembles how Catholics behaved or worshipped in the past. This is revolution not tradition, and it is done on their own authority, defying rules in place both before and after Vatican 2.
This is a very interesting take, Francis. My point was not so much that it is totally unchanged, but that it lacks the ability to change properly (which is, of course, because the Church has now moved onto a new rite, which apparently precludes their keeping the old one up-to-date.) I appreciate your detailed comments on what exact changes you’ve seen and some of the finer points!
Regardless of rubrical changes, I suspect that many traditionalists have a sort of “50s/60s is the pinnacle of civilisation” view, and that makes it difficult to adjust to the realities of the modern world. My next few weeks’ essays (first one tomorrow morning) are about some of the difficulties of being Christian in the modern world. It’s more about spirituality than liturgy, but I’d love to hear your thoughts there!
I agree with your premise, but not with your conclusion.
If you have attended the different traditional masses (FSSP, SSPX, Christ the King) they all have different feels to them. I would argue that they -are- developing different traditions. I would also argue that the different locales are slowly beginning to develop different traditions as they're allowed.
This latter is especially slow because very few of the peoples actually move to develop a Polity around the parish. Few move within walking distance. Few participate in daily Catholic parish life. Few make it a priority.
And, to be fair, this is not aided by the Parishes themselves. They often are put in dilapidated Churches, bad parts of town, or other situations where it is difficult for families to justify moving there. So they don't. They don't focus on uplifting the neighborhood. Evangelizing.
And so, the flock remains scattered, weak, and traditions are slow to build, if ever they do.
But, this is no different than a NO mass. In fact, I would say even scattered Latin masses still attempt more tradition than NO from what I've seen - doing events on feast days and all they can when they do gather, and events in between. As much as they can, they do.
Hi Uncouth, thanks for your engagement, as always! I am sorry not to have responded yet, I thought I had. I think my conclusion may be less strong than you thought. I have indeed attended old rite celebrations of the ICRSS, SSPX, FSSP across multiple provinces, and diocesan priests, as well as having attended Dominican Rite Masses from two different provinces of Dominicans. They are beautiful, and I wish they were more widespread.
I agree that the different Latin Mass communities have different feels to them and are developing different traditions, under some interpretations of that phrase. However, I do not agree that the tradition can develop properly. As long as the Church has the 1962 Missal locked down, the old rite cannot add new saints to the calendar, change red-letter rubrics, etc., all of which are needed with time. As an example, the calendar had gotten so clogged up by the time of Pius X, that (while I can't remember the specific numbers) there were very few days a year where green vestments were worn, and very few days a week where the psalter was prayed in its order.
I agree that the current situation of the Latin Mass parishes is a bigger concern than their liturgy. I think that it results from the liturgy though, as it tends to attract a group that is overly-focussed on liturgical change. In general, Latin Mass parishes (while having many amazing parishioners and many amazing priests) cannot be healthy "polities" (as you have discussed with Ryan in the replies to this comment), as they gather people who live 2h away and only come together for that liturgy. You can see this imbalance also in the fact that Latin Mass parishes tend to have a gender ratio significantly skewed towards young men (who are more likely to have tunnel vision or autism).
My dream would be for the Church to go back to one rite and split parishes geographically, which would result in far more tightly-bound communities. This requires consolidating back down to one liturgical rite and everyone attending their neighbourhood church. I understand why that's not happening now - likely, your nearest church has a weak community, an overworked priest who's only there one day a week, and is on the verge of closing. My dream would probably be that we interpret the 1910-2020 changes as experiments, revert back to pre-Divino Afflatu, look at what worked and what didn't, and then implement the good changes only, but loosen rules for bishops to live out subsidiarity in their dioceses' liturgy. I doubt that will happen though, so we'll just have to see what God is calling us to do in our situations.
I think one important thing to note - I am writing about what WE should do. Given that we are not bishops or popes (I assume that's the case for you, it is for me :) the question is what we should do in our own situation. That's why I don't write about politics or whether the Church should revert to pre-Divino Afflatu liturgy. I am not condemning that interpretation of traditionalism. Instead, my goal is to write about our own attitudes, and how they should be.
Wishing you all the best and a blessed Lent!
I think your point about "develop a Polity" is the driver behind what develops a tradition in the first place. Culture grows organically from communities - which is not the same as the modern 'faith community' who drive into the parish from their hermetic McMansion 20 minutes away. That's generally how traditions develop, and the issue is that traditions without continuity do stagnate
I would agree whole heartedly, seeing it in action. When you live close enough to celebrate and gather for traditions for the more 'minor' feasts, you do so, and traditions are born. A neighbor hosts potlucks, stories, a fire, pie competitions, whatever - for those minor feast days. Candlemas, St Martin's day, All Saints Day, etc.
The whole calendar comes alive, and the community with it.
The 1962 Mass Catholic continues to be updated by the Vatican, as it has been for the past 63 years. As the liturgical calender has changed so did the Mass.
It's a rather Puritan stance you take here as there is an underlying assumption that "external" ritual is meaningless for those who participate. Do not be a "traditionalist." Great. Follow your conscience. Learn more though, and perhaps appreciate what has been stripped away.
What do you mean that the "1962 Mass Catholic continues to be updated?" The only major update I know of was the Traditiones Custodes requirement to have the readings in the vernacular. The 1962 Mass is not updated by the Vatican, and (as far as I am aware) there are no major Latin Mass groups which celebrate with a calendar with any updates past 1962.
I do not appreciate the comment "Learn more and appreciate what has been stripped away." I do not know why you are accusing me of ignorance or of taking a Puritanical stance (by which I assume you mean an anti-ritualism?). I believe that there is great value in external ritual and I know about and am appreciative of things that have sadly been stripped away (eg, the minor absolution, offertory prayers, censoring of collects, imprecatory psalter removal, near-universal ad orientem, and many other things). Changes should have been made in a more thought out way - and, were that to have happened, far fewer changes would have occurred.
I do not have a quarrel with the Latin Mass or with tradition. My argument is against a false religion of traditionalISM, which prioritises the stasis of things which lead us to God above God himself. There is only one ISM I subscribe to, Catholicism.
What you appreciate or fail to appreciate loses me no sleep. That means I do not care. God bless. Enjoy the guitars, kumbaya.
You specifically told me to appreciate things, and I responded that I did. I am disappointed to see that you ignored my clarification and questions and, instead, responded with a childish insult (which doesn't make much sense, as I generally attend a Latin Mass). I hope that in future interactions you will engage more humanely!
I'm sorry, did you say something?
Well, I don't go to any Mass other than TLM. Take that away from me and I won't go at all.
I take a different view. I agree with the conclusion, but only partially with the argument.
I agree with your basic argument that traditions must evolve, but like UB I don’t think this necessarily implies the trad attitude is incorrect.
However, I do question the existence of “old” and “new” rites, or at least the point at which the old became the new. There have been many typical editions of the Missale Romanum. The first generation of traditionalists asked for the retention of the 1962 missal, but many of their successors now prefer the 1945 missal with the pre 1955 Holy Week services. Other traditionalists reject the changes made by S Pius X. Terms such as “Latin Mass”, “traditional Mass”, “TLM” are ambiguous; to which edition of the missal do they refer?
We must also add to this the timescale at which changes were introduced in different places. Continental European churches introduced features such as vernacular prayers, dialogue Masses and celebration versus populum decades before late adopters such as the UK. These distinctions are still preserved in traditionalist attitudes. Children from France attending a “TLM” in England are often shocked at how different it is. Mass celebrated by the institute of Christ the King in the UK is very different from that celebrated at S Trinita dei Pellegrini in Rome.
And so I disagree with your statement that the traditional rite has remained unchanged for 63 years. The printed words on the pages of previous editions of the missal may not have changed, but the “Old rite Mass” as it is experienced in practice is in flux. And the supporting attitudes and arguments of the traditionalists, often now flatly contradict the positions they held 30/40 years ago.
This, then, is one of my reasons for not joining the traditionalists. They recognise that the 1962 missal is unsatisfactory, which is why they campaigned for use of the pre 55 Holy Week. But simultaneously they realise that change was needed, so they keep some aspects of 1962, and freely add more modern elements. The result is neither a retention of a tradition they received personally, nor a genuine return to an identifiable previous version of the Mass, but rather the creation of a new, bespoke liturgy within a culture which little resembles how Catholics behaved or worshipped in the past. This is revolution not tradition, and it is done on their own authority, defying rules in place both before and after Vatican 2.
This is a very interesting take, Francis. My point was not so much that it is totally unchanged, but that it lacks the ability to change properly (which is, of course, because the Church has now moved onto a new rite, which apparently precludes their keeping the old one up-to-date.) I appreciate your detailed comments on what exact changes you’ve seen and some of the finer points!
Regardless of rubrical changes, I suspect that many traditionalists have a sort of “50s/60s is the pinnacle of civilisation” view, and that makes it difficult to adjust to the realities of the modern world. My next few weeks’ essays (first one tomorrow morning) are about some of the difficulties of being Christian in the modern world. It’s more about spirituality than liturgy, but I’d love to hear your thoughts there!