Card. Pell: In praying to the Omnipotent God we mustn’t “talk in the same way we do at a barbecue”

UPDATE 1 June 0455 GMT:

I have learned that the reporter did not get it wrong.  There are indeed bound copies of the new translation of the Roman Missal with gilt-edged pages.   There were presentation copies for the Holy Father and the members of Vox Clara.

So!  There it is!  Hopefully we’ll all be able to have them soon.
____

From The Australian:

Fresh embrace of everlasting salvation

    * Tess Livingstone
    * From: The Australian
    * May 22, 2010 12:00AM

After nine years of work, Catholic authorities have rewritten the mass

IN praying to the omnipotent God at mass, George Pell contends, it is not appropriate to "talk in the same way we do at a barbecue". [Do I hear an "Amen!"?]

On the cardinal’s desk sits an impressive, red-covered tome of 1266 gilt-edged pages, the new English edition of the Roman missal: one of a handful of copies in the world[HUH?  I suspect not.  I am guessing that what the writer saw was the Latin edition and then made an assumption.  There is no way that a draft copy of the new English Roman Missal is going to have gilt pages.]

Barbecue lingo it is not, but when the new translation of the Catholic mass is introduced, its striking changes may prove to be a "barbecue stopper" at church gatherings and possibly beyond. [Good... too many Masses are celebrated as if they were barbecues.] Because, in introducing them, the church has struck a powerful blow in the culture wars against postmodernism and meaninglessness in favour of rigorous scholarship and precision of language. [Did I just read that in a secular Australian paper?]

[...]

Too often, in practice, the reforms of the second Vatican Council were turned into something never intended: outlandish, avant-garde liturgies and an erosion of doctrine, ostensibly "in the spirit of the council".  [What's going on?  This is making sense!]

As mainstream Protestant churches lurch left, ordaining women as bishops and gay clergy and questioning long-held doctrines about the resurrection, the virgin birth and salvation, Pope Benedict and the Catholic hierarchy are convinced that richer, more reverent liturgies are essential to strengthening religious belief and practice. While controversial in liberal Catholic quarters, the approach is attracting wide support, including from outside the church, with hundreds of thousands of traditional Anglicans preparing to cross the Tiber. Once inside the Catholic Church they will retain their own traditional liturgies.

In Australia, the new mass text will be introduced next year, probably on Pentecost Sunday, [Start the countdown!] after an extensive education process.

The text will replace a version with which congregations have become familiar through 40 years but that many church leaders, including Pell, regard as too colloquial and "a bit dumbed down": a defective translation of the official missal.

The new document is not a literal translation but is more accurate, employing powerful words — venerable, compassion, sacrifice, victim, consubstantial, and everlasting salvation.

"The previous translators seemed a bit embarrassed to refer to angels, sacrifice and perpetual virginity," Pell says, before heading out at 8am to spend a day talking to students at Catholic schools in Sydney.

"They went a bit softly on sin and redemption."

[...]

 

Read the rest there.

Official WDTPRS kudos to the writer, Tess Livingstone.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Brick by Brick and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Card. Pell: In praying to the Omnipotent God we mustn’t “talk in the same way we do at a barbecue”

  1. Tom in NY says:

    Κυδος γραμματει. Laus Suae Eminentiae! Sancte Laurente, ora pro nobis.

    Salutationes omnibus.

  2. wanda says:

    Wow. Trying to recover my senses…the only thing missing..ineffable.
    Praise God!

  3. nzcatholic says:

    This is good. Cardinal Pell while not the orthodox lion some like to think he is will be a good pick as Head of the bishops.
    Its coming in on the first of Advent here in New Zealand the new translation.
    There doesnt seem to have been any resistance, the liberals ( and the church in New Zealand isnt known for its orthodoxy by anymeans) seem to have just accepted it.
    Kind of odd

  4. janek3615 says:

    After the tearing of hair and gnashing of teeth pass away in the US when the new English edition is actualized, can we start to reverently dispose of the NAB translation of the Bible that is foisted upon us all at mass? If barbeque talk is inappropriate, how about the clumsy, fatuous kind of cacophony that comes from reading aloud the NAB.

  5. Magpie says:

    That’s an excellent article. I’m going to file it away and use it for the letter writing to local newspapers which is almost certainly going to ensue.

  6. Andy Milam says:

    So, I have stumbled upon a big issue, after reading through the texts and visiting with a new priest friend who is very attached to tradition.

    The issue is this (and it seems to be a HUGE elephant in the room…); The change in the translation is a good thing, but there has been no amendment in the rubrics. If the words of the Mass have changed, but the actions don’t follow, then how can there be true reform? Reform is more than just words, it is action. And since the action hasn’t changed (reformed), are we going to have another editio typica in order to have rubrics that are more reverent and proper to the Mass?

    What I see now with the change in the translation, is that we’ve put “lipstick on the pig.” What true reform has there been?

  7. catholicmidwest says:

    Andy, you said, “What true reform has there been?”

    Let’s wait til we hear it. A big step has been taken here, I believe, because this is as symbolic as it is actual. It’s a huge step backwards for those who believed and hoped that the church would discard her tradition, and a huge step forwards for those who believe that the current mass is too casual, too diluted by the culture.

    I agree with you that ostensibly it will be possible to corrupt the new just as easily as the old. However, I think the symbolic content, as well as the literal content, will make it just a little easier for the laity to complain and make it stick. I also think that the ridiculousness of some of the abuses will become ever more apparent as the new words are used.

    Also important: Say the Vatican were to strictly dictate rubrics. How would it be enforced? It wouldn’t be. We have seen that. It wouldn’t be. All of that heartache would fall to the laity as well, and without the technical ability to do so. So from that point of view, it’s easier to move the mass step by step (brick by brick as Fr Z puts it) toward where it needs to be than to impose what can’t be enforced anyway.

    Make no mistake. The ball is in the laity’s court after the new translations. The CAtholic laity needs to stop sucking up to the whims of crackpots (on the pulpit and off it) and insist that we get what is coming to us: authentic Catholic worship that is worth our devotion and our time. We need to “get fed” with the truth and practice that is ours by right. See canon law.

  8. Mitchell NY says:

    Many are looking forward to the new translation but as one poster mentions what about the rubrics? Abuse of rubrics is widespread..Shouldn’t some of those abuses as well be revised, now that they are reprinting the whole Missal? I hope the new Missal keeps the instruction for the Priest to TURN and face the people for certain portions, thus indicating or assuming an ad orientem position. Some of the more obvious rubrics that are under discussion to change, like moving the sign of peace should be done before the printing of the new Missal. Otherwise we get our new translation, many will buy the Missal as they will be curious, and then a year or two later rubrics may change and then they must be printed and bought again. It is an endless cycle in a time when many families simply can’t afford to buy new Missals, for a family of 5 for example, every few years. As much as possible should be addressed in this Missal. At least, perhaps a Prologue to state what the norms of the Church are. Communion on the tongue, kneeling, ad orientem posture, Latin for the Ordinary or Mass in general and Chant. Some hint as to where we are or should be going I hope will be included in the new Missal to go with the beautiful new translations.

  9. AndyMo says:

    The issue is this (and it seems to be a HUGE elephant in the room…); The change in the translation is a good thing, but there has been no amendment in the rubrics. If the words of the Mass have changed, but the actions don’t follow, then how can there be true reform? Reform is more than just words, it is action. And since the action hasn’t changed (reformed), are we going to have another editio typica in order to have rubrics that are more reverent and proper to the Mass?

    This translation is from the editio typica of the the Roman Missal, 3rd edition, which was completed way back in 2000. We’ve been waiting ten years for this translation. I don’t think it’s necessary to redo the rubrics, etc. We just need to actually implement that which was recommended by VII, not the nebulous “Spirit of Vatican II” garbage we’ve been getting for the last forty years.

  10. catholicmidwest says:

    For instance, we have a parish near here where I sometimes go to mass. An old retired priest at that parish insists on adding a very schmaltzy hymn right after the consecration. He sings the first verse solo (he thinks he can sing) and then the congregation the next. It’s sort of an anthem; he means well; but it’s a mass abuse of the most egregious sort. People object if you complain because he’s a popular priest, being a nice old grandpa sort of guy. BUT it’s necessary to complain because he’s abusing the mass, nice old grandpa or not.

    Another instance. I was in a diocesan educational program for which we had to make appointments with a priest to discuss the faith. I went to a few, which were set up by me ahead of time by appointment. During these appointments, he just sat there and talked about himself and didn’t expect me to say anything, but just nod. No point to it. For an hour! The first time I just thought it was a fluke or that he had a point that I had missed. However, the second time was just like the first. Period. No apparent point to it. I continued the program but stopped the appointments. I don’t suck up to priests like that, sorry. If he wants a counselor he needs to get one. If he wants someone to have coffee with, he should get somebody. But he might have to allow some other subject to be the topic subject. Just saying.

    Another instance. Going to confession at a major university at Eastertime. Got into the confessional and the priest just wanted to visit, period. Yap, yap, yap. No spiritual direction, no talk about sin and salvation. Just visiting. I excused myself and let him know I had to get going, and I left. I’m sorry if the man was lonely, but confession is a sacrament, not a tea party.

    I know priests are lonely, and I think this might be what drives some of this nuttiness we see in Mass. They are trying to please people, any people. But IF they want to deal with all this appropriately, they have to stop expecting the laity to fawn over them no matter what they do, separate their social time from their liturgical time, and do the right thing at the right time.

    Laity dealing with it appropriately should expect decent liturgies during liturgical time, and then appropriate visiting during visiting time. There’s nothing wrong with taking a priest out for coffee, everything good in fact, but he should be expected to behave like a decent adult human being, which precludes hour-long monologues about himself. I don’t put up with that and I don’t see why anyone should. (The layperson needs to act decently too. On occasion there’s a sort of voyeurism that the laity exhibits about the priesthood (like they do about sisters) and that’s really inappropriate on our part too. It can encourage the personal soapbox behavior by priests (and it has encouraged worse too).)

  11. catholicmidwest says:

    I am hoping that the liturgical part, at least, will be helped along by the extra formality of the new translation and some of the “schmaltz” will appear more inappropriate, because it really is inappropriate in mass.

  12. RichR says:

    Great article! I hope that there will be many barbeques stopped.

    We, the people, need elevated liturgies to raise their thoughts and hopes beyond the mundane world we see the rest of the week. We need inspirational reminders of the eternal reward awaiting faithful servants.

  13. Andy Milam says:

    Hi catholicmidwest,

    You ask, “Also important: Say the Vatican were to strictly dictate rubrics. How would it be enforced?”

    How were the rubrics enforced before the Council? I believe the correct response is this; the Vatican will instruct the seminaries to teach correct liturgical actions and impart proper theological reasoning as to why things are done the way they are. In turn, the seminaries will follow through on the proper methods requested from the Vatican and teach properly. Priests then, will have a better understanding of the rubrics. Currently this is not being done.

    This is about a change of culture. We cannot hope that words simply will make the difference, but we also must expect, as Catholic laity that there is proper action behind the words. For in the Mass, you cannot have one without the other. Intent, form and matter; those are the three things necessary for a sacrament to be valid. FORM.

    I also believe that a return to a more strenuous rubric will more effectively bring about the desired change. I disagree that this falls on the laity. We can insist all they want, but until the priests and educators have a change of heart and actions, there will be no real reform. And while we’re waiting for the next generation of priests to come into “influence” (ie. power), souls are being confused and improperly formed.

    Hi AndyMo,

    You say, “I don’t think it’s necessary to redo the rubrics, etc. We just need to actually implement that which was recommended by VII, not the nebulous “Spirit of Vatican II” garbage we’ve been getting for the last forty years.”

    I respectfully disagree. It is the quite apparent oversimplification of the rubrics which is nebulous. Even when the rubrics are followed to the letter, there is still much left to be desired. Too much dead space as it were; for example, what does the Deacon of the Word do during the Liturgy of the Eucharist? Essentially he is acting in the place of the subdeacon in the EF and there was a defined role, but the OF does not specifically have a dual role for the deacons, so there is a hodgepodge split in the ceremonies, it is cumbersome and awkward, at best. That is but one example. Another is the turning of the priest to face the people. Why is that there? Priests are already facing the people, in 99.4% (sic) of churches. There are a myriad of others.

  14. Thomas S says:

    Fr. Z,

    Your surprise at this article in a secular outlet might be diminished when I tell you that Tess Livingstone is Cardinal Pell’s biographer. She wrote GEORGE PELL: DEFENDER OF THE FAITH DOWN UNDER (Ignatius Press).

  15. catholicmidwest says:

    Actually, the laity have stepped in many times to turn things around, including during the crisis of Arianism. This crisis is eerily similar to that one, in many respects. The laity play a legitimate part, and always have.

  16. Daniel says:

    The translation of the new General Instructions for the Roman Missal (which were issued in Latin around 2000) came out a few years ago while waiting for the texts themselves to complete translation. There was some emphasis on eliminating some abuses at the time, a number of them having to do with the use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. Abuses remain widespread, but the Instructions have already been implemented. Become familiar with them, politely mention them to your pastor when they are not being followed, and then try reporting them to your bishop.

  17. Henry Edwards says:

    Andy,

    While I am optimistic that the new English translation will begin a change in the culture of the ordinary form, I nevertheless have begun to think that the larger problem in the Novus Ordo from the beginning has been less in the words than in the actions.

    Assuming (at least for the sake of discussion) that there’s not so much wrong with the (Latin) words of the OF, I believe the mistake of the “experts” who constructed the Novus Ordo was to ignore the fact that the faith probably was carried down through the ages less by the words of the Mass than by its ceremonial and ritual.

    Surely, the faith of many generations was nurtured and sustained by a liturgy whose words they probably didn’t understand well. (Indeed, who can understand fully the mysteries of the Mass, whatever words are used to represent them?)

    If so, then the faith must have been carried mostly by the “action” of the Mass conveyed by ritual, which is now largely missing from the ordinary form. (Recently, I eavesdropped on a conversation between two permanent deacons discussing the fine points of OF liturgy, and it appeared there were only two of them available for discussion – fine points, that is.)

  18. doanli says:

    Praise God! Very happy news indeed. (The Gates of Hell/Modernism have not prevailed, as our Lord promised.)

  19. Andy Milam says:

    Hi catholicmidwest,

    You state, “Actually, the laity have stepped in many times to turn things around, including during the crisis of Arianism. This crisis is eerily similar to that one, in many respects. The laity play a legitimate part, and always have.”

    I don’t disagree with you about the fact that the laity play a part. They most certainly do, but at this time, I don’t see the vast majority of the laity doing anything, let alone really even caring. It is this antipathy that is truly sad. A perfect example. I am rabidly Catholic, Fr. Z can attest to it. He actually had something to do with my initial conversion to orthodoxy along with Monsignor Schuler. (He opened my eyes to a much larger Catholic world). I consider myself devout and I consider myself faithful. So does my sister. However, she only attends Mass once a month, maybe. She doesn’t care about the way Mass is celebrated. Honestly, she thinks that a polka Mass is more Catholic (ie. appropriate) than the EF. That is the problem with the laity, for the most part we are not educated. Sure, there are some of us who are astute enough, but the vast majority are like my sister. They simply just deal, because they a)either don’t know or 2) don’t care.

    I agree with you about the comparison with the Arians. I think that if you look at what we are going through now, there could a radical break with Sacred Tradition (with a big T). And I think that it could be a sort of “neo-Arianism,” without having a distinct term to define it (only because someone isn’t there to define it). Perhaps we are in the midst of “Bugnini-ism.” If there is a radical break in FORM and the only thing that keeps it from being a heresy is the fact that the majority of the bishops (including the Pope)and faithful of the world accept the radical break, then yes, we’re in a neo-Arianism. Personally, I don’t think that the break we are talking about is an invalidating, but rather it is an embracing of illicit actions.

    That being said, I need to be very clear; I DO THINK THE ORDINARY FORM IS VALID, but I think that it is riddled with major problems. I think that if the Mass were reformed according to the Council Fathers and not Archbishop Bugnini, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation. The Mass was hijacked and it was changed radically, but it was left valid, not by the hands of the reformers, but rather by the Breath of the Holy Spirit.

    Remember, it wasn’t necessarily the laity that affected the change with the Arian Heresy. It was St. Athanasius. He was a bishop. He implored the clergy and faithful to follow. Who do we have now that is imploring us to follow into authentic reform as envisioned by the Council Fathers? I can’t think of one. There is too much concession to the status quo and not enough of a call to return to the vision of Vatican Council II and it’s Fathers.

  20. Andy Milam says:

    Hi Henry,

    You say, “…I believe the mistake of the “experts” who constructed the Novus Ordo was to ignore the fact that the faith probably was carried down through the ages less by the words of the Mass than by its ceremonial and ritual.”

    Yes. Exactly.

    You go on to say, “Surely, the faith of many generations was nurtured and sustained by a liturgy whose words they probably didn’t understand well. (Indeed, who can understand fully the mysteries of the Mass, whatever words are used to represent them?)”

    Exactly right, as I was told by Fr. Z, Monsignor Schuler and most recently Fr. Greg Pendergraft FSSP; regardless of whether we understand Latin, God does. We are there to worship, the priest is there to offer our worship to God on our behalf AS A MEDIATOR (in persona Christi).

    Finally you say, “If so, then the faith must have been carried mostly by the “action” of the Mass conveyed by ritual, which is now largely missing from the ordinary form.”

    Yes, I believe you are correct.

  21. catholicmidwest says:

    Henry,

    It’s probably not either/or, but both. The thing that sold the Spirit of Vatican II was force. Catholics tend to be a very compliant bunch but pervasive force over a long period of time just overwhelmed the resistance of many people. Some left; the rest buckled. The resurgence of excessive clericalism (both by priests and by laity) also played a huge part, because it was from them that much of the force and twisting of ideas came. The had the prominence to propagate these ideas, in the absence of the normal structures in place before the council (families, sodalities, parish structures, prayer groups, etc).

    The thing that holds it is place is the amount of time that’s passed and the amount of mixed motives that the culture has inserted into the criteria structure for making decisions now. Many people simply don’t remember anything except the NO. Many people are excessively influenced by the mores of the current American commonsense framework, which is toxic. People were thrown back on the commonsense framework when support from the church collapsed. The result? Many people are more than willing to compartmentalize their faith and clericalize their practice, moving it entirely into a particular segment of their existence, ie the time they spend being a liturgical minister etc.

    However, lay people are not all as stupid as so many insist in the Catholic Church. Some people are indeed pretty dim, but not all. IF this real reform is to occur, the laity who are on-board with tradition will have to be involved. Rome will not be able (or willing) to police everything on a street level. IT’s simply not possible.

  22. catholicmidwest says:

    What happened in the mid-60s would have been incomprehensible to most people just 10 years prior. Support from the church collapsed, there’s no other word for it, and those not willing to leave simply buckled one sinew at a time, in slow motion to the ground. It was very painful and the wounds still fester & bleed.

    As a convert, coming into the church was like learning to traverse an obstacle course (or a city in ruin) to negotiate the Catholic world without stepping on a VII “mine”, getting glares and angry responses. One learned what to say and what not to say in particular groups of people, or one didn’t stay Catholic for long. The hot buttons are still there, I still negotiate them, and I’ve been Catholic for 25 years now.

  23. Leonius says:

    Looks like they still have some real journalists in Australia who do their research! Or His Eminence and his staff did an excellent job of briefing her.

    Either way its wonderful to see.

  24. TJerome says:

    I’m in love with Tess! She actually gets it. Please forward to Bishop Trautman, those of you who are more computer savy than I.

  25. SPWang says:

    Livingstone wrote Pell’s Biography a few years back.
    http://www.duffyandsnellgrove.com.au/titles/george_pell.htm

  26. THREEHEARTS says:

    She writes at times for AD2000, here is one of her articles. Somewhere there is an article by Tess on a catholic church she attended in London

    http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2006/decjan2006p11_2419.html

  27. Tony from Oz says:

    At the level of pragmatism, it must be admitted that the translations are a marked improvement on the original.

    Of course – amongst commentariat references above to ‘elephants in the room’ – the real elephant is that the translators can only retranslate what is there in the Bugnini-edited Novus Ordo latin normative form [which is the BIG PROBLEM – especially the excised and butchered offertory prayers!]. The TLM offertory prayers drip with sacrifice and oblation..but are simply not there to be translated. No doubt the translation is an improvement, but, golly, old Annibale Bugnini still lives on together with his non-conciliar-mandated Mass text (notwithstanding Paul VI’s later authorisation of same). I acknowledge that the way forward must needs be by way of what we have now in place. But the principle must also be acknowledged that the way forward is also by way of a ‘fabricated liturgy’ – an unprecedented and alien concept in terms of the organic development of liturgy. And that also includes the Reform of the Reform party – as well meaning as they be.

    One other thing. Someone, above, mentions abolition of the ‘sign of peace’. This would be monstrous. It has always been in that place. What is required is abolition of the congregation’s participation in the sign of peace which should be restricted as a ritual action to clergy (in solemn liturgies) who are conducting the liturgy. The practice is optional in the OF (eg: at an OF Low Mass yesterday at St Christopher’s Cathedral, His Grace of Canberra & Goulburn, Mark Coleridge, omitted the Sign of Peace entirely)

  28. TNCath says:

    Three cheers for Cardinal Pell! I am very pleased to read this, and I am confident that His Eminence will be a marvelous Prefect for the Congregation for Bishops. Lord knows we need more men like him in the curia.

    However…

    I say this with the deepest respect and loyalty to Cardinal Pell and whoever might has the slightest bit of influence on the implementation of these translations that might be monitoring this blog: if you think the average parish priest or even the average bishop in a U.S. diocese is going to “ride herd” on enforcing an authentic implementation of the new translations under the present plan for doing so in individual dioceses, then you are sadly mistaken. While certain individual dioceses and parishes might do so, for the vast majority of dioceses, despite the “educational processes” and “workshops” many dioceses will undertake, it will be a haphazard, hit and miss, a la carte implementation just like it was back in the 1960′s with the implementation of the Novus Ordo. If you don’t believe this, then start visiting parishes incognito and find out for yourself. Many parish priests are still publicly very antagonistic or apathetic towards the new translations, and, quite frankly, aren’t going to attend to the details of such a change. While they might start saying “And with your spirit,” abuses such as Father’s giving the weather report, thanking folks for coming to Mass, reporting the score of the Notre Dame game, singing the “Mass of Creation” in the lame-duck translation, and inserting extraneous ad libs into the Mass aren’t going to change because the parish priests know that, because the average laypeople don’t really know what is and what isn’t acceptable, nobody is going to tell them not to do otherwise, and even if they do, who’s going to be there to call them out on it when they do? And even if they do that, what are they going to do? Fire them? Put them in the diocesan jail for liturgical violations? Not a chance.

    Don’t get me wrong: no one is more supportive of the new translations in the Novus Ordo than I am. However, unless “martial law” is declared in the Church in the United States where implementation of the new translation is consistently, strictly, and uncompromisingly implemented, we are in for more the same that we have endured for the last 40-something years. I pray that I’m wrong.

  29. moon1234 says:

    We just need to actually implement that which was recommended by VII, not the nebulous “Spirit of Vatican II” garbage we’ve been getting for the last forty years.

    Which is really just the Tridentine Mass with the epistle, gospel reread in the local language along with more involved instruction of the people in their faith. The “Reformed” liturgy is really something that was invented out of thin air. You can keep reforming until you get back to the the Tridentine Mass, or you can have what really should have come out of Vatican II (Summorum Pontificum). Anything less is just shotchanging yourself.

  30. I have learned that the reporter did not get it wrong. There are indeed bound copies of the new translation of the Roman Missal with gilt-edged pages. There were presentation copies for the Holy Father and the members of Vox Clara.

    So! There it is! Hopefully we’ll all be able to have them soon.

  31. Geoffrey says:

    According to my sources, ICEL still doesn’t have the final texts in hand. They are waiting to receive them from the Holy See, which is several weeks away at least. Then they will be distributed to publishers, etc.

  32. Fr.Estabrook says:

    we mustn’t “talk in the same way we do at a barbecue” …..

    and we mustn’t DRESS in the same way we do at a barbecue!!

  33. Andy Milam says:

    Hi moon1234,

    You state, “We just need to actually implement that which was recommended by VII [...] Which is really just the Tridentine Mass with the epistle, gospel reread in the local language along with more involved instruction of the people in their faith [...] or you can have what really should have come out of Vatican II (Summorum Pontificum).

    You don’t have it exactly right. If we are to implement what was assumed by the Fathers of Vatican Council II, then we should look at the Missal ad experimentum (1964 Roman Missal). That is closest to what the reforms were to look like. There was to be a little more than just the Tridentine Mass as liberalized by Summorum Pontificum. There were substantial changes, such as the removal of the Prayers at the foot and the Last Gospel. The use of English was indeed extended to the Readings, but also to the propers. The Commons were still in Latin however and there was the “accepted” option of remaining ad orientem. The changes in the music were about as fast coming, but there was still chant in many parishes, although that diminished pretty quickly in favor of the 4 hymn flavor even before the Council.

    Just thought you’d be interested in the differences and a more accurate reading of the liturgical upheaval of the 1960s. It wasn’t quite as drastic as you say. Many places used the 1964 Missal until 1969 and then the Liturgical Time Bomb (sorry to steal your thunder Mr. Davies, RIP) went off.

  34. wanda says:

    Fr. Estabrook, Big Amen to what you said. Thank you for that. People (I know it is no one here) please..for the love of God and His holy dwelling, leave your shorts and flip-flops for the picnic.

  35. irishgirl says:

    Fr. Estabrook-A huge AMEN to what you said, especially with the warmer weather here! Thank you!

    One of the reasons I go to the EF Mass exclusively…

  36. catholicmidwest says:

    TNCatholic,
    I agree that this is what it will be like in some places. I expect implementation to be very spotty for some time.

  37. catholicmidwest says:

    Andy, you said, “How were the rubrics enforced before the Council? I believe the correct response is this; the Vatican will instruct the seminaries to teach correct liturgical actions and impart proper theological reasoning as to why things are done the way they are. In turn, the seminaries will follow through on the proper methods requested from the Vatican and teach properly. Priests then, will have a better understanding of the rubrics. Currently this is not being done.”

    Do you really expect this to happen anytime soon? I don’t.