I am thankful to be able to fully participate in Mass spoken in English. Having been exposed to both types of Mass, I felt nothing from attending Latin Mass Sunday after Sunday. I knew the words, but never the meaning. I knew ritual, but had no real connection. I felt more distance and disconnection from the priest, the congregation and even from God. After years of being away from the church, when I finally returned and heard The Gloria sung for the first time ever in English, I wept. And I still cry every single Sunday. For some people the tradition of the Latin Mass may hold them, (and I greatly respect that), but for me, everything about the Catholic faith became beautifully clear hearing and responding in English. To me, God doesn't hold one language above any other. He hears the prayers of ALL His people. There is no "right" or "better" Mass. Whichever Mass brings you closer to our Lord and Savior is the right one for you.
Whichever Mass gives God greatest adoration, glory and honour is the right one for Him. But sure, we should check which one we think works for us, primarily. 😐 What nonsense
Thank you, Father Casey. This was very helpful. As someone born after Vatican II the Novus Ordo was the only mass I knew until I attended my first Latin mass when I was in college. I fell in love with the extraordinary form of the mass, its reverence, its sense of sacred, its beauty, and its relevance. But it also helped me to better understand and appreciate the Novus Ordo. I am happy that our church is big enough to accommodate both forms. I attend both forms of the mass regularly and am happy with both. God bless you.
The doctrine of the novus ordo was adopted to fit the Protestant version of the religious service. Look at a Lutheran service and see the difference between the novus ordo and the Lutheran service.
@@kevinphillips150 To be objective, the Lutherans broke from the RCC; so their service was derived from ours. Whose idea was it really from the get-go?
Fr Casey, as a returned Catholic because of the traditional Latin mass, I have to disagree respectfully about the overall benefits regarding the changes to the mass. Unfortunately more often that not 'conscious and active participation' is translated to 'the congregation must be constantly talked to and respond' which limits rather than expands participation and can be rather annoying. In the old mass congregants participate through gestures (kneeling, signs of the cross, etc), the singing of hyms and saying the responses. One can follow the missal verbatim, or pray silently. I find also the TLM has more visual queues one can pick up on. I also have to disagree that the reforms particularly the use of the vernacular caters to more diversity. In the Latin mass parish in Hong Kong most of the congregation are Cantonese but there are also Filipinas, and western expats. Were they not traditionalists they would go to three separate churches, in three separate languages with three separate priests. Many parishes around the world are divided on ethnic lines. Is it not better to worship as a single body united by Christ, rather than be divided? When I travel around and go to a TLM, I feel quite at home worshiping with the locals despite variations in how the mass is executed. Lastly in my experience, I have found the TLM to be far more reverential, through the wording of the liturgy, the silence and the marks of respect especially when receiving the Blessed Sacrament. It's easier to believe you are receiving the body of Christ when you are kneeling before the alter rather receiving by hand standing from an extraordinary minister somewhere in the middle of the nave. While many novus ordo masses are very reverential and well executed, I've had some cringe-worthy experiences. I think pastors need to resist the urge to be creative by attempting to personalise or customise the liturgy because more often than not it becomes very contrived, cringy and detracts from the sacrifice of the mass, putting people off attending mass.
I don't see anything here which proves the Novus Ordo mass is worse than TLM. First, You've got to compare the best, correctly executed Novus Ordo mass with the best, correctly executed TLM, otherwise it's not fair. Take note, the TLM can also be abused, with priests just mumbling gibberish since the people can't understand or hear them anyway. Second, Novus Ordo doesn't require receiving communion on the hand, but you can receive on the tongue, and you can also kneel. Receiving while standing doesn't necessarily mean we're being less reverent. I mean, you can be kneeling there and waiting for the priest but be thinking of breakfast. In my experience that part before communion where we admit we're not worthy is the preparation for receiving Christ, and when you really participate in that, really meditate on that truth of our unworthiness, figuratively speaking, your heart is so reverent it doesn't matter how you receive. Literally though, of course we shouldn't receive while sitting, but hopefully you get what I mean. Also, we've got to adapt. Perhaps where you are there are not that many Catholics, but where I am we're packed every Sunday. There is one priest per 5000 or so people. Eucharistic ministers are a practical adaptation to help the priest give out communion. Also, it's faster when standing. I'm not saying a quick mass is a good mass, but in a packed church, and I mean literally packed, spilling out the door, maybe 300+ people, and only one priest, communion while kneeling on the rail will extend the mass by 20 minutes or so. You might think that's a small sacrifice, but people still have responsibilities. What if they need to go home asap to take care of a sick relative, or whatever. 20 minutes of just waiting for everyone to be served is too much if it occurs every Sunday.
Damien Paroski Yes, but was great attendance DUE TO the TLM or to something else? Take note, the culture during this time didn't encourage being different. There was more to be lost besides your salvation if you declared yourself to be an atheist. You'd lose your social standing, your good name, and people would think of you as evil and would shun you. So perhaps the churches were filled not because of the TLM but because of fear of ostracism. Also, do not think that sexually sinful priest didn't exist back then. It was just covered up due to the culture. Even during the Medieval times when masses were in Latin, we have records of priests and Bishops having mistresses. Murders still occurred, abortions, and all sorts of evils. The Latin mass didn't stop Luther and the eventual spread of Protestantism. In my country, the Philippines, the Latin mass didn't stop the entry of Protestantism during the 1900s. The Latin mass didn't stop the existence of illegitimate children, alcoholism, spousal abuse, etc. Lastly, if Vatican 2 and the Novus Ordo mass are truly evil (and that's debatable) who were their authors? Their authors were priests and theologians who grew up under the TLM. My point here is those withered numbers DIDN'T begin after V2, but were already occurring under this supposed golden age. Hence your point that the Church under the TLM specifically DUE to TLM fails. To give an analogy, let's say you're under a special diet which you believe to be very good because you've never felt better. Then suddenly you develop stage one cancer, so you switch to a different diet, and a few days after your cancer becomes stage 4. You can't blame your stage 4 cancer on your new diet. It was already developing during that special diet. You just couldn't see it because it was hidden.
The whole reason The Tridentine Mass was in Latin was to make it universal so anyone who had a missal in their own language could follow the Mass, you don't need to know Latin to understand or participate in the Mass, anyone who's read one knows there's a section in Latin and a section with a translation so you could have a church full of people who may not all be able to speak the same language still be able to attend and follow the same Mass.
No, actually, the whole reason that Latin was use in the liturgy was because when it was first fashioned, it was the native language of the people. It was their vernacular. After many centuries of custom, it began to be associated with the official, universal language of the Church, but that was not it's initial purpose.
@Truth what's important labelling ...the new go to when lacking of any substantial argument....wait a minute ?! Am I a freemason too now ?!?! ...🤣🤣 Just kidding ,relax God bless you brother
@@BreakingInTheHabit The gist of what you're saying is right, but there is some equivocation in the term "vernacular." The Latin of the Mass was not the Latin you'd hear in the streets of 2nd century Rome, nor was it Classical Latin. Rather it is highly semiticized and hellenized, possibly with archaic sacral Latin peppered in. So it would be more accurate to say that the practice of the early church was to develop a local hieratic language (based on the models of the Lxx and the NT) and then celebrate the liturgy in that artificial sacred language. This was and is the practice of the Eastern Churches.
@@BreakingInTheHabit , no you are gravely mistaken, you are giving an opinion, you really need to do more prayer and research before you do these videos. Seems your just Cheerleader for Vatican II.
Most modern churches look just like Masonic Lodges, I've seen pictures of Lodges and if I didn't know better they could have been modern Catholic Churches. And what's with always putting the Blessed Sacrament in another room? It should be on the Altar not next to it.
I feel like the importance of Sacrosanctum Concilium rests ultimately on the implementation of the letter. It acknowledges Gregorian Chant as basically the 'gold standard' of Roman Rite worship and yet (I know this is anecdotal) I never even HEARD of the existence of Gregorian Chant despite decades of Mass attendance. It acknowledges Latin as the universal language of the litury and yet again not only was I not taught this, but after decades of Mass attendance Latin was never spoke about nor taught. If we are to hold to Sacrosanctum Concilium - then we should be fighting against the fact that millions of Catholics have been deprived of any exposure to Latin or Gregorian Chant.
Peace and Good Nathan !, You just put the finger on the wound...you sre absolutely RIGHT!, and the cause of all problems came BC the - implementation- of this document which many with - power- inside the Church did as they wish not following the RUBRICS and is the reason so many cstholics are against the CVII .Ave Maria IMMACULATE !! .
I agree but as this video points put the problem isn't Vatican II or Novus Ordo, the problem is scandalous abuses of the liberty such as only using shorter EPs, in hand reception the lack of genuflecting or kneeling before the host, or the abuses mentioned in your comment, trust me I love TLM but I am just not big on all the winy sedevecantist/hardcore traditionalist/SSPX theology
I think it depends on the parish we end up joining. Mine has organ and gregorian chant, unless the organ player is unavailable , which happens time to time and then it's a bit different. But the reverence our priests have for the Eucharist make it special anyway. We even have people from neighboring parishes who go there. Which is sad, when i think about it even though it means i'm lucky having ended up there. What stroke me so far is that churches where proper reverence in the sacrifice (at least from what I perceive) and going more in a way including organ and / or at least gregorian chant tend to be more crowded than those going "freestyle" in my area. You always have that guy asking for guitar or a pop rock gig but well.... personally i don't understand that. If even the mass loses sense of sacredness where are we gonna find it? It's not going to the Sunday market, it's receiving the body and blood of our Lord, it has to feel special and solemn imo.
I wish our church sang Gregorian chants. They engender introspection. We have mediocre hymns that are boring and not even as good as they have in Presbyterian churches. Plus I would love to be offered mass in Latin.
Most of my Catholic friends attended the so-called "Extraordinary Form," and as a Russian Orthodox Christian that "form" of the liturgy is closer to the liturgy of the Eastern Churches. Personally, I would love to see that form of the liturgy adopted as the "Ordinary Form" of liturgy in the Roman Church. Just my opinion of course.
Facts !!! Couldn't agree anymore... thats whats makes us CATHOLIC... both Roman and Orthodox... different language... same rituals !!! the Novus Ordo is basically just to make protestants feel better so they can come into church... hipocracy !!!
Interestingly, Western rite orthodox churches exists (which are under full communion with Russia or Antioch). These churches use the ancient Western liturgies such as the tridentine mass and liturgy of St James. They are really beautiful. Can be found on RU-vid
Hi Fr , I really enjoy your teachings. I feel this video is very well done. But priest in particular must remember to not treat traditionalist as a minority .... the fisher of men ... fish from all bodies of water! Lakes , oceans, rivers etc. thanks for all your great courage you’ve shown ! Pax
Pistachios beat me to the punch .. As I say also to Fr Casey, above: We look forward to seeing you offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, according to this New Order and the Ancient Use, even as the Second Vatican Council instructed - facing the altar, turning to the people when required, offered in Latin (Greek and Aramaic), sung, with a congregation who know how the offer up the Missa De Angelis with understanding etc etc ;o) If you have permission to do so. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-sqY4SrAAdzU.html
@@mirandatarbox5096 Well said, Miranda. The future of the Church has been placed by the Lord our God in the hands of the Faithful, holding fast to the Faith, aka Sacred Tradition - a Remnant. It is good to see energised priests, striving for the Faith, so we must do all we can to assist and support them. Thanks be to God for them.
@@MrKev1664 TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU ! I am approaching my 67th, birthday.Remember in elementry school the day that POPE JOHN XX111 PASSED AWAY. Well remember serving as a alter boy at my parish long closed at both the low and high Latin mass, also celebration of feast days etc..prior to VATICAN 2 and afterword until 1967 entering a Jesuit run high school. AT FIRST having the mass in English was great not having to recite Latin while serving, however when i finished high school RESPECT & REVERENCE for mass it's self was GONE. For me too much of hand clapping, guitar playing replacing sacred organ music, Gregorian chant ,receiving holly communion in the hand. ABOVE ALL introduction of Anglican hyms . IT'S TIME TO RETURN TO THE SACRED. When it happens i will not be alone returning to the true ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH !
@@pjasyl @MrKev1664 While I respect your honor of tradition, friends, we must remember that the changes to the liturgy do not constitute changes to the understanding of the substance of what is being done. The NO mass is meant to be medicinal to the world that values expression and community. I would point to a recent Homily give by Pope Francis when he reminds us of some early Christians who focused too much on the ideology of tradition instead of teaching the truth of God. In summary, while there is beauty in the old ways, we must not conflate traditional liturgical practices with the true form and substance (meant in the doctrinal sense of what is absolutely necessary) of the Mass.
@@willhunter7363 I hate to say it but pope Francis has strayed too far from roman catholic doctrine. He lacks the courage to restore the church by not facing head on the excommunication of ALL CLERGY TOUTING EXTREME LEFT WING THEOLOGY. Remember when ST. JOHN PAUL 11 ON A TRIP TO South America REBUKED a Jesuit priest for MARXISM PREACHING. Worst of all NOT STANDING UP TO COMMUNISM THE SWORN ENEMY TO THE CHURCH. The signs of the church imploding on it's self grow even stronger by not cleaning up once and for all child abuse by all clergy. I n summary the next pope MUST HAVE THE COURAGE so to speak TO TACKLE THE BULL BY IT'S HORNS, also TO FULLY RESTORE WORLD WIDE BY PAPAL DECREE THE OFFERING OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST WITH ALL FORMS OF THE LATIN MASS TO ALL WHOM WISH TO ATTEND LIKE MYSELF. In Canada in my province the latin mass is EXTINCT ! At least it is available to some extent excluding sspx in the states.
I only started to participate more effectively and actively in the new Mass once I met the TLM, there I understood what the Novus Ordus was trying to say and then comprehend it, before that the words in MY own language were just "memorized syllables"
Well, I read the mass in Latin and within four weeks of light study I’ve got about 20%. It’s causing me to learn the mass. I’m not just mumbling words I might use in daily life. They are sacred words.
You're a little more chipper about the whole thing than I am. It seems to me that while each component of post-VCII liturgical reform might be defensible in itself, the net result has been little short of disastrous.
You're assuming causality. I'd say that modern, irreverent culture is more to blame for what you're calling a disaster. It seems unlikely that Catholic liturgical change alone is greatly responsible for broader cultural cynicism and declining moral norms. Ask any catechist - today's kids are growing up in a toxic mix.
@@paulmiller3469 you're assuming that allowing the dictatorship of the modern culture was not the reason for Vatican II. And now we have the likes of James Martin promoting gay masses and a Pope bringing Paganism into the Church. And where from here? And all because Vatican II decided that the windows needed to be open to allow the "fresh air" of modernism into Church! Is it any wonder the people are running back to the tried and true of the "Traditional" Mass? PS: At mass Sunday one of the five (all female) "ministers of the Holy Eucharist" was dressed(?) in those skin tight leopants and high heels.
@@paulmiller3469 Paul, I respectfully disagree. The Church was long the bulwark against such cultural whims and set the tone for reverence. When the sweeping changes within the Roman liturgy were allowed, it sent a signal to the world that it was free to go full steam ahead and sadly many Catholic went along with it because the once stalwart defense (the Church) was seemingly complicit (or at best indifferent).
@@belleobscurytee I appreciate the point your making. I would note that, here in the U.S., the Catholic Church has never been all that influential. We're 23 percent of the population and have only had one Catholic president, and it was a campaign issue for him to overcome. We always have been a predominantly Protestant nation. It's hard to equate the broader society taking cues from the Catholic Church. Now in terms of Catholics accepting a larger degree of modernism today than before, I think you have a stronger point.
Paul Miller It is quite funny that the Pope took a swipe though it was never obvious at some “rigid and conservative” young American priests when in fact we would expect the Americans to be at the forefront of the likes of Fr. James Martin. Looking at the current Catholic landscape, there will be two countries that will serve as the test subject for the current tensions brought by post-Vatican Council II: the United States and Germany. It is also a question that while Europe the heartland of Catholicism is de-christianizing, USA still more or less has more people who identify themselves as Christians relative to the other side of the Atlantic, when both are seen from the eyes of the other countries as the champions of liberal ideas and cultural changes.
@@patrickcauley2859 Not that I know of. There are five parishes near me. One is very liberal (no kneelers) to very conservative, none that I know of celebrate Mass in Latin.
Fun fact about us Croats! Pope Innocent IV approved use of Slavonic language with Glagolitic script in liturgy making us only Latin Catholics allowed to use language other than Latin before Second Vatican Council, as much as I know :) If anyone knows why, please share it with me. I very much appreciate your videos and I think this is important topic. All I can say is that it feels great to be able to actively participate. Even though we had that permission I think Latin was still huge part of our liturgies. My grandma wanted to sing in church choir but she had only 4 years of elementary school, like most of the women at that time, couldn't read Latin so she wasn't allowed to join. Keep up with great videos, thanks!
Fun fact there are several liturgical languages (Greek, Latin, Old Church Slavonic, etc.) and none of them is vernacular. Slavonic language used for liturgy wasn't language anybody spoke at that time - words of a priest, who actually studied the language. It is used by FSSP priests in my country on designated feasts, when it's allowed as an option, and nobody fully understands that language (I've been there few times) and even more the Canon of mass written in Glagolitic script so nobody can't even read the thing except those priest, who learned it.
It's worth noting that altars in the East have always been freestanding, enabling it to be walked around. BUT the Sacrifice is offered Ad Orientem. In fact, it is impossible to celebrate facing the people as there is a crucifix and candelabrum in the way.
GOD HIMSELF told the church that the liturgy is to be in native language. When the church was born of THE HOLY SPIRIT on Pentecost and the disciples went into the streets preaching the Word they were HEARD EACH IN HIS OWN LANGUAGE. THEY WERE NOT SPEAKING LATIN.
I find it interesting so many comments seem to think you are arguing against traditionalists. From what I gather, you can desire more traditional expressions without contradicting the council. In fact Fr. Casey points out that most of the changes trads don't like weren't required by the council and could be reinstated at any time. I hear people invoke "vatican II" all the time, thinking that everything that was done in their local church over the past several decades was a mandate of the council rather than what it actually was: the whims of their local pastors and sisters...
Even if it wasn't a mandate, it was a consequence. Irregular Mass practices such as communion in the hand had been growing in use before the Council and instead of decrying them as unfitting, Protestant, and blasphemous the Council opened the door to their use.
@@PatrickKniesler Patrick, I do not disagree with your assessment. I think the things you point out are clear discernible evidence that those practices should be called out. My initial point was only that we can in fact undo many of those changes and return to a more traditional liturgy. That doing so would not be anathema to the council, because the council made no such definitive declarations. Your right, "the spirit of Vatican II" was allowed to run wild. But the Holy Spirit is operative even now in the Church and is calling us back. Rather than merely lamenting what was done, I and people I know, am seeking ways to restore what was shelved.
@@PatrickKniesler actually Eucharist in the hand is the ancient and normal practice of Rome as was standing to receive it. We know this because quite a few Popes wrote about how communion was to be received and the sign of cross (which also changed in the 12th-13th centuries).
So many important prayers and invocations removed from Novus Ordo mass. I go to Mass to Worship God but instead there is no silence in which to pray, irreverent music and a weekly performance from the priest. The laity making this time all about themselves, it's loud like a partys going on. Eucharistic ministers immodestly dressed the list goes on. Most Churches where I am have lost reverence in the Church for God. This does not seem to happen at the TLM Churches unfortunately there are none within 4 hours of me.
@robert willigen I know what you mean, I am tired of going to Church just to have their political agenda pushed down our throats. Why not better educate the lay people on the faith, for so many do not even know it.
@robert willigen oh jeez!! You guys have everything but the spirit of Christ speaking within you... You should check your Phariseeism at the door, because that was what Christ most condemn from ancient Judaism: this obsession with form and ritual in detriment of the spirit of the word! The ideological fervor and anger of your words are not Christian nor Catholic. Our religion is not only an old ritual. St. Paul called that dead faith, and it doesn't give good fruit, but sour emotions. Be careful, there's no Christian love in the words you are uttering. True Christianity is antithetical with anger. If you are this angry, that's not Christ speaking through you.
@@RinaldoDegliAlbizzi I disagree, the Old rite masses are the antithesis of 'old ritual' or a 'dead faith'. During these masses, the liturgy is uplifting and speaks for itself. (Demographically I'd add they tend to be younger and more diverse). Unfortunately when I do go to Novus Ordo masses more often or not its has a distinct stale feel to it, and more often than not I feel I am constantly talked at.
@@0333Gus don't take me wrong, the Latin mass can be all those things you say. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the insistence that only the Latin way of living the Catholic spirituality is the only one legitimate and orthodox is dead faith, because in fact nothing in the Catholic Creed suggests that there is something inherently better, or more right about the Latin mass. That obsession with an old European tradition (however uplifting it is for people like you), and the denouncing of the way others experience the Catholic faith is the language of Pharisees, and an obsession of form over substance, and THAT is a dead faith.
Good video! This is the best defense of some of the liturgical changes I've come across. But there's still a few innacuracies. The problem is that the liturgists of the time made assumptions about the ancient mass that we don't have evidence for, many of which can now be disproven through scholarship. I really want to focus on orientation here. (I wish I had the time to talk about why repetition in the mass is a good thing) It is correct that the altar was freestanding, in fact in some early churches the altar was places closer to the middle of the room like the Jewish bema. But mass was not celebrated facing the people. The early altars weren't rectangular, but semicircular, and the flat end is the one facing the people. It would be nearly impossible to celebrate on the other half, with such an awkward shape, and such little room behind the altar for deacons to bring things to the altar. We have no mention of masses facing the people in the early church, and this shouldn't surprise us. Every source and inspiration of the rite makes sense with everybody facing the same direction. 1) Think of the temple sacrifices, you wouldn't want a priest looking at you as he slaughters a lamb. That's just not right. 2) The Word in the synagogues is still proclaimed facing Jerusalem, everybody facing the same direction, this is seen as a form of sacrifice or prayer rather than merely a didactic action. In fact we see in scripture the Torah being proclaimed in Hebrew, the sacred language, then repeated in Aramaic, the language people understood. (The same practice in most TLM communities, though it's sometimes permitted to simply read them in English). 3) The mass was said over the tombs of martyrs. You're a friar so I'm sure you've been to more than a few catacombs before. If you were to say mass over one of those graves, does it even make sense to try to move anything, so you can fit behind the tomb? No it really doesn't. This was the standard practice until the time of St. Ambrose, who was the first person to move the bodies to a church rather than build a church over the grave. Indeed the rite of consecrating an altar is a modified form of the funeral rites, complete with an all night vigil or wake in front of the relics, and a funeral procession into the church. An altar, before it is an altar, is the resting place of a man. When you pray a rosary with the family of a deceased parishioner, do you stand behind or in front of the casket? Well we all stand in front. Or kneel or sit. Sure the person leading the rosary has a particular role, but he's not somehow doing a radically different thing from the rest of us. This is why prayer while we face the same direction better reflects our unity as God's people. Looking forward to the next video :)
@@josephmillraney1061 You haven't lost the sense of the sacred liturgical gestures, ironically neither the High Anglican, unfortunately we have and we are suffering the consequences
I agree. People formed exclusively in Novus Ordo and no experience in the Roman Rite (TLM) or Eastern Rites is malformed and cannot appreciate the beauty of the Church's liturgical patrimony or continuity. Not too mention the vast majority of Novus Ordos celebrated (unicorn NO excluded) are boring, irreverent, Protestant, and banal. They don't inspire or drive greater Faith. Hence, the decline in attendance and participation. TLM and Eastern rites are seeing an increase. Which is why I suppose the modernists like Pope Francis and homosexualists in yhe Vatican are trying to kill.
Instead of writing a very long comment, I will suggest you read "The reform of the Roman Liturgy" by Klaus Gamber. He goes through these stuff very thoroughly.
The problem with the premise that the liturgy must be simple and plain is that it flies in the face of the Eastern Liturgical tradition which is, by comparison, complex and rich in ancient symbols. The reduction of all the Roman Rite's symbols to the least common denominator has been a major loss and mistake. The Eastern Orthodox look at Rome's reformed rite and know that they would do well to stay away and maintain their traditions unspoiled.
Were there Protestants on the Council? Since V2, has attendance of Sunday Mass increased, stayed strong or decreased? Also, why does it appear that Bishops have free reign to do what ever they want; shutdown TLM services and churches, bless gay-marriages and remove conservative priests who speak against heresy.
Excuse me Fr. Casey, Many FIlipino's was converted from being lukewarm to active practicing catholics. "By their fruits, ye shall know them" Traditional cathoic teachings may be strict, but that's how it's supposed to be, like, how the Church is Monarchial......
Minimalism is the liturgical order of the day. A casual approach to the sacrament has eradicated any sense of reverence. The tabernacle instead of being the central point and focus of all attention has been relegated to a corner often barely visible. It looks more like an after thought. The priest facing the people has made him the centre of attention as the congregation focus on him and what he is saying. The mystery and beauty of the old mass has simply gone and this is clearly reflected in a significant drop in church attendance. Well done Vatican II.
It was certainly more reverent. But honestly, if it wasn't for the New mass, my grandma wouldn't have converted. She was a native in Borneo. When Europeans came and preached this strange new religion (christianity) in a strange language (latin), she hated it so much. She saw them as a threat to her people and culture. But after the use of the vernacular, she no longer saw the Europeans as enemies and began to accept them and their religion. So if it weren't for the new mass, my family would still be pagans today.
@@icarus6492 Why not just translate the mass to Latin then? Why remove prayers and turn the priest around? I'm Byzantine Catholic and we kept our traditional liturgy but translated it to vernacular.
I have been only once on the old mass, little did I understand from latin sentences and prayers - but it was and still is obvious to me, that the old rite was about so much more, than merely latin. It was real, hard, elite prayer and one could feel being a part of the Church, of something old, ancient, yet living and eternal. It seems, that the old mass was more stoic and rational, while the new is often about talking, singing, emotions.
Fr., I have difficulty with parts of the Roman Liturgy. I recall what I experienced years ago and am sad that the sense solemnity is gone. Yet I attend for my granddaughter. Blessings, Father Casey.
Hi Joseph - I am an Anglican, and even though I am not a Roman Catholic, I have a similar feel in regards to our Anglican liturgy. I prefer the 1662 Book of Common Prayer in the traditional Elizabethan English language form, however more and more Anglican parishes use the contemporary form, Book of Common Worship or the Alternative Prayer Book and those services lost a lot of their dignity and solemnity too.
@@johnking5174 Not to mention the 1979 BCP has a lot of liberal influences in its theology. That's why I prefer the 1928 BCP or the new ACNA one based on 1928. P.S. Good to see a fellow Protestant on here who also enjoys these videos.
@@wesmorgan7729 Hi Wes, thank you. Yes, I come from a mixed family, part Roman Catholic, part Anglican - I was raised in the Anglican faith tradition. I love the BCP, especially Thomas Cranmer's original version, but the 1662 BCP is very good. Have you read much of the BCP yourself?
@@johnking5174 I was raised Baptist, but recently became Anglican. The church I go to still uses the 1979 BCP, but I've been to a few that use the 1662 and 1928 BCPs. I probably prefer the 1928 one as it is a bit more modern, but still in the tradition of 1662, but I do love the language in the 1662 BCP. Cranmer was certainly a brilliant theological mind when he crafted it.
I looked into this, apparently priests faced the people only when the apse faced west in some ancient basilicas. And I also found that free standing altars are older, but were mainly so a priest could insence the altar as most apse were built eastward.
This video decreased quite a lot my (mild) antipathy towards the Novus Ordo mass. I have not encountered before as clear and believable explanation of the new mass and the SVC's intentions. You are better than Catholic Answers. Nevertheless, I am still more prone to the Tridentine Mass (even though I am not anti-SVC in general), but I am an Eastern Orthodox, so what I think of this probably does not matter much.
It really does depend on the person. People who were raised in traditional liturgy can indeed have more affinity with said method. That is because they know what is already happening and even know what is being said. Others also find it beautiful because of how more respectful, or "different" it is from today's world. In my opinion, I do like Tridentine Mass, but I am also fond of Novus Ordo. Being raised in the New Order, I understand what is being said and believe in what is being said. Initially, it took me a bit as to what is going on in Tridentine Mass because of its extraordinary liturgy. Even though I know what is happening, I like to fully understand what is being said. It will take me many visits before I understand it, just like any Christian would do as they participate in Mass. I guess it goes both ways. Both have their pros and cons (well, more like perks, not cons really), and both are valid. I honestly think Novus Ordo as a gateway to Catholicism for non-Catholics, due for them understanding it more, a way for ecumenism.
Very good points. For me, it is the beauty and being different from the world. I was actually a (High Church) Lutheran before I converted to Orthodoxy, and when I went to a Catholic mass for the first time, I was a bit disappointed about how much Novus Ordo resembled Lutheran mass. I had expected something more 'otherworldly'.
@@Alkemisti Also, Mozarabic and Ambrosian rites came from their respective groups of people, which, compared to Roman rite, is very small in population. Don't get me wrong, they are also valid rites, but Tridentine and Novus Ordo fall under the Roman rite (hence why non-Catholics call us "Romanism" or something of that account; they don't realize Catholicism is more than just the Roman Rite). The Mozarabic and Ambrosian, as it came from Eastern churches who came to the fold, have, unfortunately, the same traits as that of the Eastern Churches: "isolated" or "ethnic-centered". That's why those rights do not seem prominent, but they are as valid as the Roman rites. It's one Church after all.
I began to wonder. Fr. Casey, you said, 'While the Catholic Church did set out to reform its liturgy in the 1960's, almost none of the things that people associate with the reform, were actually intended by the Council.' _Why_ are such things associated with the NOM, and why are there elements in the NOM that were not intended by the Council? Is that not a problem even if the Council did not cause the problem?
Lack of encouragement and not giving proper catechisis to the people of God, these issues not being addressed in churches by priests is main reason for great confusion of this era!!! Kudos !! Fr. Casey for speaking about this topic!! God bless ! 🙏🏻
Fr. Casey, as a person born into the Norvus Ordo Mass, I find the Traditional Latin Mass more intimate. I was baptized Roman Catholic, but I was not taught well of the faith by Norvus Ordo Priests and wasnot formed well. When I was 13 I went to a Born Again summer camp and only then did I grasp the idea of having a relationship with Jesus Christ. I then went into an Episcopalian church school and there I was taught the importance of liturgy and what it symbolizes. THEN,in 2008 I went back into the Roman Catholic church because of Mother Angelica, EWTN,The Theology of the Body and Mother Mary. I then discovered what Ad Oreintem does,what the latin Mass does and now I love the LAtin Mass....I think young people are notformed very well because of the Novus Ordo Mass.
Actually, facing the people probably wasn't an older practice. That is a theory which was prevalent because of the discovery of free standing altars, but the priests probably did not face the people, since early Christians, like many Jews, prayed facing east. The eastern Christians in fact have free standing altars, yet they do not face the people when they're at the altar.
*Laughs in Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom* (Byzantine Catholic Liturgy created under St John Chrysostom Archbishop of Constantinople in the 300s) We like our repetition, we do everything 3 times hahaha Also we have a free standing altar but also do Ad Orientem
The Liturgy of Saint James is older as is Saint Basil from which the liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom is devised. In the liturgy of Saint James, the Priests face the people. It was done with a bishop and twelve priests.
@@Tsalagi978 Interesting,this way will make the last supper celebration complete However,it's Tough for countries where there's lack of anointed priests to celebrate every where
So why was Sacrosanctum Concilium ignored? I don't think anyone can argue, at this point, that the Novus Ordo Missae has nothing to do with the Council documents. "there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing." (SC 23). The entire Novus Ordo is an innovation. The complete and unnecessary overhaul of the Ordo, lectionary, rites, vernacularization...it is alleged 87% of the previous rite was either altered or done away with. From my reading of many of Acts of the Council that bishops were not anticipating any major or tectonic shifts in the Liturgy but minor revisions and an effort to renew the laity's devotion. But we got a wrechivasion instead. And what has been the fruit? Attendance is at all time lows, irreverence and sacrilege at all time highs. The Faith seems to be in a rapid decline since the late 1960s. Why was the reform of the Liturgy and Vatican II so great again? Just asking
I cannot speak of the Church in other countries, but my experiences of the changes in the Mass during the 1960s and 1970s were unnerving, to say the least. No regard was given to sacred music being Catholic or even faintly traditional. The emphasis in my parish was on making the ritual "relevant" and in many ways impossible to differentiate from a hip Protestant service. By 1977, it reached some kind of a climax of ridiculousness, with dancing altar girls and decorations that appeared to have been designed by a Kindergarten class out of their minds on a serious sugar high. The brakes were put on after 1978, but the damage was done.
I commend you for the quality of your videos, and I want to emphasize that my criticisms are meant only to inject an Orthodox perspective into the issues that you are covering in your talks. That said, a free standing altar is an ancient tradition, but having the priest face the people during prayer is a modern innovation. Even in the small number of Churches that have a western orientation of the apse, as Roman Catholic authors Fr. Louis Bouyer and Fr. Joseph Jungmann pointed out in many of their books on the liturgy, the priest and people did not face each other during prayer, because just before the anaphora proper would begin the deacon would instruct the people to turn and face east, so that they would actually have their backs to the priest. Phenomenologically speaking a closed circle is created when the priest faces the people during the eucharistic anaphora, which is why that orientation sends a confused message about the source of life in the community, with the parish itself in some sense visually depicted as the cause of its own existence. That said, the Apostolic Tradition has from the beginning taught that prayer is to be done facing east, because "as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man," which is why the vast majority of Churches were built with the apse in the east end of the building (n.b., except for a few Churches in the city of Rome itself, which as Fr. Bouyer and Fr. Jungmann pointed out were pre-existing basilicas given to the Church, and in which to compensate for this western orientation of the apse the people themselves would turn their backs to the priest and face east upon the deacon's instruction, "conversi ad Dominum"). [Note 1] From an Orthodox perspective there is nothing more deleterious to sacred worship than to create a closed circle of the priest and people facing each other during prayer. The priest and people together should face east as we all move toward the Parousia of the Lord with the priest symbolically leading his people into the eschaton. [Note 1] Fr. Louis Bouyer, "Rite and Man: Natural Sacredness and Christian Liturgy," (Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1963), pages 174-178; Fr. Joseph Jungmann, "The Early Liturgy," (Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1959), pages 136-139; see also Fr. Joseph Jungmann, "Mass of the Roman Rite," (Dublin, Ireland: Four Courts Press, 1986), vol. 1, pages 239, 254, 371, 415-417, 448, 481, and vol. 2, pages 112, 351, and 422.
Don't like the music at you parish? Blame the Susans holding Gregorian hostage. Don't like how the responses at Masses with choir are spoken instead of chanted back? Blame the master of ceremony. Don't like the priest facing you? Blame the priest. Don't like the priest skipping the Roman Canon (EPI) and using the other EP's? Blame the priest... almost none of the problems people have with the Ordinary Form of the Mass are legislated in Church Law or the documents of the Second Vatican Council, you're correct Fr. Casey. And I say this as someone who goes to the Traditional Solemn High Mass on the Lord's Day and other Obligated Holy Days, not bias here. I think this does, however, show how flexible the rubrics for the Ordinary Mass are. In my opinion the flexibility, especially the 2 optional announcement periods, are where liturgical abuse have flourished the most.
So you’re saying it’s a coincidence that a majority churches turned to a tacky execution of the liturgy after the missal of 1970 rather than a wide sweeping trend?
Christopher Brunetti We say the St Michael at the end of every mass in my parish and in my area in general. It’s not like it’s been outlawed... just because your parish doesn’t do it doesn’t mean they all don’t.
RamManNo1 each parish does things differently. When I was altar boy in Brockton in the 90s one church rang the bells at communion while a another church in the city did not.
Nothing that you said explained why unconsecrated hands were allowed to touch the Body of Christ. I was a Minister of the Eucharist for many years until I woke up to that fact. I now receive only on the tongue, receive only from a priest with consecrated hands. I believe that this has contributed to the people's lack of belief in the true presence. :"Hey if my neighbor down the street is allowed to distribute communion, then it must be only a symbol".
Arthur: You are right! Nothing in the Vatican II Documents approves of Holy Communion reception in the hands. Catholics were taught that only the consecrated hands of an ordained priest can touch the Sacred Body of Christ. This is just one of the many abuses that developed and were not only accepted but also encouraged by many bishops. The problem is that the magisterium appears to have done nothing to correct this. I too will only receive Communion on the tongue and from a priest!
Hi Fr, love this video. Very succint and balanced. Having said that, I think sometimes the English speaking world needs to remember that in parts of the world (like the jungles of Malaysia), sometimes electricity is not even an option let alone organs. The portable guitar does provide a good support to the congregation's singing. Played well, it can actually be appropriately reverent.
Don't mind the American traditionalists, not even the Europeans are as obsessed as they are with their misgivings with the New rite. I think most times they seek to equate problems the American church to the universal church.
One doesn't need instruments for the Mass. Gregorian chant and other hymns provide beautiful, reverent, and solemn music. This form of music promotes meditation, adoration, peace, and contemplation. It truly lifts the mind up to things above. I find it hard to pray whilst a guitar is playing, personally. God bless you, it's so lovely to see the faith practiced around the world :)
Well said, Deacon. (And thanks for the video, Friar!) Since I was a teenager, I've accompanied choirs on acoustic and electric guitar, alone or in ensembles, at six different parishes across the US. I currently teach music at a Catholic school, mostly with a guitar over my shoulders. I've played with hundreds of Catholic musicians, and the single best was a guitarist in Boston. The guitar can certainly be reverent! I love chant and organ, too, but in the US, I only hear them in concert halls. Many newer churches don't have an organ. For every naysayer traditionalist out there, there are a dozen guitarists willing to volunteer their time, talent and equipment to their Catholic community.
@@ananalogrecords As depicted in paintings, Angels enjoy singing, praising the Lord, With multiple musical instruments, more than just with trumpets, or harps alone
The other part is that the liturgical reform was centered on the Roman rite and not the eastern rites. The liturgy is the source and summit of our faith. Eastern or Western, Ordinary or extraordinary form, the liturgy is the same. First part the Word then The Eucharist. That is the basis of liturgy simply. I have been in extraordinary form masses but I understand more in the ordinary form. The Eucharist is still universal in any church in communion with Rome. Bread and wine become the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Mass Divine Liturgy Holy Qurbana All confect the same Eucharist.
Please make a video regarding progressivism and conservertism in the Catholic Church, Liberation theology and Traditional stand against some of the arguments of liberation theology!!!
Because the altar was separated from the wall in some churches doesn't mean they celebrated versum populum. Just look at the byzantine rite; the altar is separated yet they still celebrate ad orientem. It's a sacrifice offered to God and should be oriented towards the Lord, not the people for we are not worthy. With all interactions between eachother, less humbling oneself by e.g. removing prayers at the foot at the altar, removing beautiful symbolism really makes it easier to be unreverant. Not necessarily but easier. Nothing is superfluous to God! God bless.
I was raised in the Catholic Church and Catholic schools. I celebrated thousands of Masses in the old tradition. Your glib little sermon is a perfect example of how hollow the Church has become. Your age is proof that you have never experienced the original form of the Mass. What a pity. Those "changes" to the liturgy literally gutted the beauty and power of Holy Mass. The Church is a pathetic shadow of what it once was. No doubt it was part of the tragedy our Lady spoke of at Fatima. May God have mercy on us.
I grew up in the Church in the late 50s and early 60s. I was an Altar Boy and, as such, had to know all the responses in Latin. What was interesting is that I had to say the responses at the same speed that the priest said his prayers. We had an older priest, our pastor, who said them at what would be a normal speaking speed. Our assistant pastor, though, raced through the prayers. He also raced down the Communion rail with us short legged altar boys practically running. Okay, enough time down memory lane. Then, I fell away for many years. When I came back, things had drastically changed. Did I lament the old way? No way. I thoroughly enjoy the new way. I love hearing the prayers and being able to understand them without looking at the translation on the opposing page. (I still have my St. Joseph's Daily Missal from the early days.) Personally, I believe this is much closer to way it would have been done in the very early years before a formalized structure was instituted. Fr. Casey mentioned this. However, my understanding as to how the altar came to be facing away is different. I had understood that it was from medieval times when there were large Monasteries with many priests. They were all required to say Mass each day. As it wasn't practical for all of them to use the main altar, there were niches along the sides of the church where several could be saying Mass at the same time. In those niches, which weren't really set up for the people to attend the Mass, the altars were right against the wall. This would, eventually, become the norm.
Why did they need to change it at all? Consider the fruits, mass exodus of priests, Confusion of the congregation. mass exodus of the people, the ones remaining by a large extent, no longer believe the "mass" is the representation of Cavalry, the fulfillment of the Jewish Passover. And the music, what can we say. How many churches that you know of use Gregorian Chant and on and on and on.
@@kurtwhiteley481 Yes, I know church history quite well. The sentence of Our Lord Jesus Christ was written in Greek, Hebrew (Aramaic) and Latin, and those became the three liturgical languages that the Holy Ghost "killed" (along with the Old Slavonic) in order to preserve the kernel of the Logos in the Sacred Liturgy. All of the ancient rites derive from one of the twelve Apostles. Never in the history of Holy Mother Church did a doctor or council concoct a rite. They were aware that God is eternal and does not change- and the Sacred Liturgy reflects that. Modern man thinks he is the center of all things. Modern man should pray the rosary, wear the scapular, and be devoted to the Immaculate Heart of Our Lady of Fatima. Then he should crack open the book of the prophet Daniel and he will realize that Vatican II placed the Abomination of Desolation upon the altars of the Church, with the connivance of several Satanic Freemasons. The documents of Vatican II are not of God. They are ephemeral and confusing. They read most unlike those of the Council of Trent. You are most correct that the church was in crisis before Vatican II. That is because she was reeling from the influence of several Freemasonic popes starting with Pius VII, who signed a notorious "concordat" with the Revolution. We are about to witness (thanks in no small part to the stupidity of the Corona Beer Plandemic- those people wearing masks might as well emblazon "I have the intelligence of a Golden Retriever" across their chests) the chastisements warned of by Our Lady of Fatima. Nations are about to be annihilated. In the meantime I am not afraid. The Holy Rosary will give me all that matters without Church or Priest. Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us. You are our only hope.
Father, I can see by the comments you are getting a lot of heat for this video, and although many may call me lukewarm for saying this, I want you to know that I support both the TLM and the N.O. Mass and I consider both to be valid (even though the TLM is more beautiful, still the N.O. is more convenient, especially for those of us who work on Saturdays and Sundays)
I feel like Benedict XVI had it right, the two rites should be able to learn from and enrich each other, not compete. I think that was from his 2007 proclamation, iirc?
From a Protestant perspective, it seems odd that a church that prides itself on apostolic succession and an unbroken chain of belief, tradition, and ritual back to the early church would just throw away the Latin mass. Jews use Hebrew in their services, Muslims Arabic... Why shouldn't Roman Catholics use Latin? Most saints, church leaders, church thinkers, etc. would have used Latin to worship and write. Why give up that link to the past?
The original mass wasn’t in Latin, it was in the vernacular. We are the “Catholic” church because we are “universal,” not “uniform.” To treat the mass (or any tradition) as unchangeable is to slip into idolatry.
This is such a great video. Thank you, Father! I am one of the organists at my church. I am 60 now, but have been playing Sunday mass since I was 18. And I am fond of saying that I will play anything unless it is heresy, lol. So, I play many traditional and contemporary songs.............many originate in our Catholic Church and some others originate from churches of our other Christian brethren. But all that being said, with every change in the Church Season, i change the service music. And this year during Lent I have been playing the Chant Mass for the service music. And I have done it off and on for almost 20 years now. So, we are doing the Kyrie (which is actually Greek, not Latin). And we are singing in Latin the Hosanna, Memorial Acclamation, Lord's Prayer, and Lamb Of God all in Latin. Come Easter, we will go back to English for most or all of the service music. But I like to do the Latin every so often to remember it's "pride of place" as the Vatican documents so aptly describe. Thanks again for this great video!
In my opinion what they should have done during the liturgical reform was just translate the TLM into English (and keep Latin for any priests who would rather celebrate that). This would keep the beautiful reverence of the Extraordinary Form of the mass and incorporate the ability of the people to understand what was happening during the holy sacrifice of the mass. They should never have changed the mass being celebrated ad orientum, communion being given only by the priest/deacon kneeling on the tongue, the use of inscence and Gregorian chant and also having low/high/solem high masses.
So the liturgy is not about the priest offering the most high sacrifice to the father? but about full participation of the congregation? If you make about the people "getting it" and not about Jesus Christ's passion and sacrifice for us then yes it makes sense to make it in a way that is more "relaxed and understandable for the audience", but if it is about the priest offering the holy lamb to God, then the changes don't really make sense and also some changes can be seen as detrimental to the purpose of the offering of the body of our savior. I am no one to criticize the new liturgy, but when I go to a different mass in different churches I can't seem to follow, since everybody has a different style, even when singing I don't know what or how to sign depending on the place. But when In latin I can go even to different countries and still feel at home and feel safe that it is about Jesus sacrifice and not about pleasing people.
Agreed. The Mass is so different in every church under NO that I cannot always follow it. It often has a very negligent attitude concerning Christ and His sacrifice. The focus is supposed to be on Christ, the Mystery of His sacrifice, not on whether we all feel involved, we are not the center of the universe here. NO Mass usually does not make one in Awe of God, does not make God special and different, does not strike Fear into the heart of the sinner to take care not to offend God.
I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the Amazon Synod. Other Catholic channels on RU-vid have a very negative view of the recent changes from Vatican II and the purposed, or suspected, changes coming from the Amazon synod. The two seem to go together. What are your thoughts?
Alter girls,Extrodinary ministers of holy communion,and ecedra was not inted by the council. Nothing needed to be changed.Because of the liturgy know,only 23% belive in the precence of Christ in the Eucharist.
I was born into NO and thanks to Covid, I discovered TLM and a lot of truth.... We pray that we will have more TLM masses and it will be back mainstream...
Thank you Fr Casey, for continuing to clear up the misinformation around Vatican 2 and the Liturgy. I'm interested in your comment about free-standing altars. I was aware that free-standing altars were an ancient custom, but not that the priest stood facing the people (except perhaps at St Peter's Basilica). Do you have any sources for this?
as an Anglican I can see changes to the service can upset many people, some of the changes seem at odds with the tradition of the particular church, you attend the eucharist in different churches and find they are different this can be disorientating, why have they changed the words? you find comfort in the words and actions so any change can feel sacrilegious
I was assistant organist for 61/2 years in a RC Church. I pushed to have the hymn "Holy God We PraiseThy Name" moved to the Entrance hymn position, because as soon as the Priest left the Altar after the benediction, the people closed their books in THE MIDDLE OF THE RECESSIONAL HYMN, and stampeded out of the church building. So much for reverance, leaving without concluding the hymn, the text of which IS INDEED A PRAYER!
Well, to be fair, the music in many Novus Ordo masses is saccharine, almost unbearable. It all depends. Sometimes you will get reverent music and sometimes you get what amounts to silly Broadway show tunes with sappy lyrics and shrieking lady singers. So sometimes, I don't blame people for wanting to get out as soon as possible.
I wonder if there was any mention about not hearing the Entrance Antiphon and Communion Antiphon anymore. I’ve been in the Church since 2000 and I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve actually heard those antiphons prayed. My understanding is that they should be put to music. But instead there is always the “opening hymn” and “communion hymn”.
As an organist at Church for over 40 years I can tell you that the basic rule is that it is to be one or the other, but not both. "A processional chant or hymn may be sung."
Father Casey I have a question you said organ is held in high esteem correct? does that mean the use of other instruments is bad at all in the mass? My point being since the church holds the organ in high esteem, does that mean other instruments shouldn't be allowed in the liturgy?
It would be more fitting to go to one of the Eastern Churches who are in communion with Rome. I have a Byzantine parish where I live and they are in full communion with Rome. The Divine Liturgy is beautiful there.
As a TLM goer, I still firmly agree with everything here. The expanded readings and communion in both kinds are absolute improvements in the NO. I think if NO masses were more frequently celebrated ad orientam with chant or sacred polyphony, people like me wouldn’t seek out TLM.
Don’t disagree. While I personally don’t prefer chant or polyphony, and wouldn’t advocate for ad orientem, I would have no problem implementing these things, at least in part, for greater unity.
And yet, the effects of this laboratory new liturgy has been a disaster for the Church. We went from full parishes, full mission on pagan/protestant countries, full seminaries, monasteries, convents to empty parishes, no vocations and heresy or lack of faith everywhere. If you go to communities where TLM is the center of the liturgy, you see great devotion, big young families with 5+ childrens, seminaries full with new sleeping quarters in mid building, basically the effects of grace. So stop, after 60 years of deception and infiltration from progressives in our Holy Church, it's time to see that the documents had time-bombs as Bugnini itself describes in it's letter. They introduced an ambiguous way of writing that can be interpreted both orthodox and progressive, so they could be approved by Paul VI and then applied in a radical progressive ways like they did. The most holy remedy is to come back to the "old ways" or let's say, the way things where from always, from even the first centuries, TLM can be traced up to the third century with little change. Feasts and some prayers were added to accomodate to feasts, but the canon and the essential parts of TLM are there since the creation of the roman church. So stop, you are a franciscan frier, you devote your whole life to the Church, you must expect the most pure and most effective liturgy to save souls, not the lab created one by the hip infiltrated bishops of the 60s, most of them dead by now. Young people is craving for true sacrum, true tradition, bellum, bonum, veritas. Young people want deep theology and philosophy, they get amazed by Saint Thomas and Saint Augustine if presented to them in all their glories. It's really sad that even with most progressive heretical bishops dead, we keep "conservating" the revolution in which poison fruits we see it was not from God.
How I see it, we have to stop the narrow "either-or" dichotomy. It's not about new vs. old rite, etc. The revival of traditional Latin mass is good, and so is the vernacular (and still solemn) Novus Ordo that started great evangelization around the world. And like what was said, beautiful traditions were brought back. A lot of traditionalists (by some def'ns, even I would be one) leave out the good fruit of the council based on the teachings of the great Saints, like: renewed focus on Scripture and Tradition, relations to the secular and political world, "Christifying" cultures, empowering the laity, etc. The fact is, the clergy and laity of the 1950s were deeply dissatisfied with the liturgy and ecclesiology of their time, even the conservatives. And of course, the revitalization of liturgy and tradition never stops, we laity should continue to participate in the life of the Church.
You are right that there are misconceptions about the council, but I disagree that the second council helped the church. Because of wrong interpretations from it, the Traditional Latin Mass is dying, and almost no one has done anything about it. The pope does nothing about this and it's hard to believe anyone that can change anything will. High Altars and Communion Rails are being torn and desecrated from their rightful place. I'm glad that my parish still has a Communion Rail, but it is covered in dust and forgotten. I used to feel very sad after almost every single mass that I attend despite the fact my lord is present before me, everything else important is missing, forgotten forever by the stains of time. The nearest TLM parish is over 100 miles away. The worst thing of all is that almost no one cares. Those who do run away to a separate parish and never do anything about the problems with normal parishes. Those who don't either don't understand or hate it. I used to think that both the tradition and my hopes are dying. And understandably the great liturgy and practice of The Church was gutted, however that doesn't mean it's the end. I must admit I was foolish to ever think in any other way but in the way of hope. the novus ordo won't last forever. The Traditional Latin Mass will outlast forever. The Lord, King and Eternal High Priest, is and will always be victorious in the distant past, the current present, and the far future. Nothing can change that, and nothing will change that.
Thank the Good Lord, I was raised in the Latin Mass, I am now forced by location to attend a NO parish. It is as reverent as a new mass can be but it cannot hold a candle on the traditional Latin rite. I would probably not have remained Catholic attending the NO. And the Church isn’t doing well with it either as grace has been diminished. What would the great Saints of old have said, watching the abomination that is the Amazon synod. Christ have mercy.
I was born knowing nothing other than Novus Order. As an adult, I've come to love the TLM so much more. The NO was stripped of beauty, mysticism, reverence. You can see the fruits of the NO by the fact that 70% of Catholics don't believe in the presence of the body, blood, soul, and divinity of the Eucharist and more Catholics are falling away from the faith. Notice the resurgence of the TLM by the younger generations! Is the new Mass valid? Sure. But is it equal? Not by a long shot.
But one thing is that any way Roman Catholic Church must restore the ad orientum. The apastolic tradition that we pray facing to east. The Vs populam have no chance in apastolic tradition
Wouldn't it be more fruitful if more of the faithful believed in the Real Presence? If one believes, truly believes, wouldn't reverence also be displayed? So much is there when I understand what is said. It seems everyone is wrapped in "yesterday" but forget Jesus is still present and with us during Mass. It is a deeper meaning and more profound one when one knows that Jesus is present when the priest says, "This is My Body...this is My Blood." And there, Jesus is with us. The Mass is the greatest way where we come together as the Mystical Body of Christ and with the heavenly bodies, worship Almighty God through His Son, Jesus Christ.
@@lapun47 Thank you. I am struggling to understand why there is so many complaints about the Liturgy when so many Catholics don't even reverently kneel before Christ, don't dress appropriately for Mass, don't even share a peaceful handshake, but have the audacity to complain about the Liturgy. There is no reverence for Christ. Now, I don't know Latin, but I know English and when I hear the readings of the Mass, and witness the Consecration of the Sacred Host, after the Priest says what Jesus said, that should be it. Jesus is actually and Truly Present in the Blessed Sacrament. I may not know a lot, but I know and believe that Jesus is with us!! Book Closed!!!
@@bagobeans I often say that obedience to the Church is obedience to Christ, but I think the saying could be expanded to reverence as well. There is nothing wrong with preferring a traditional celebration, so long as it is allowed by the Church. But when preference turns to obsessive whining and then to disobedient disregard, it would seem to raise questions about reverence held for Christ.
@@paulmiller3469 Are you referring to me? My issue is their attitude towards others who go to the "New Mass" and how they turn their noses down on us. What I am only saying is if one believes and knows Whom they are standing before, Whom is really in that Sacred Tabernacle, they would stop their complaints and show reverence due Him who is Truly Present, Jesus Christ, Himself.
I watched online a lovely mass at Harrington house that was done in the new rite, and the priest faced the people for some of the rite but during the canon he whispered and faced east, and there were no hymns it was just silently prayed. that really showed me that what I didn't like wasn't the text of the new mass but how it was celebrated usually. I get terribly distracted by the noise, clutter, handshaking and obtuse music. It's different every week and all I want is a silent place to pray
Father, what nonsense. Vatican 2 caused 50,000 Priests and Nuns to leave the Church. Latin Masses being banned, low attendance in New Rite churches, communion in the hand, Tabernacle off the altar, communion standing etc. Explain why you would meet the King of all Kings standing up and not on your knees. With love and respect Father you must have blinders on. Pray for the Church and all Clergy!
A liturgy starting with Psalm 42 and ending with St. John’s Gospel is somehow less scriptural than the NO? Unfortunately so many priest start the NO with “good morning everybody! 🌝” and end with “ok everybody, have a great week! 🌝”. The idea that somehow the NO places a greater emphasis on scripture because it has an extra reading (and kind of not really because the TLM has the Last Gospel), or because the readings are done in the vernacular, or because even if you don’t have a deacon and a subdeacon to process with the Gospels; “Fr. Jim” can raise the lectionary high in the air like Simba - is just a half-baked idea. Also, I’m a Roman Catholic convert from Greek Orthodoxy. Latins think they got repetition in the TLM just because they say Kyrie Eleison 6 times, and Christe Eleison 3 times? Y’all don’t know repetition!
Thank you for explaining that the current Mass in over 90% of Catholic Churches was not invented by or approved by the Council Father's. The reform they thought they were getting was the revised liturgy of 1965. They thought that because it was the mass celebrated by Bugnini himself at the council. You can find that Missal on eBay or online for in pdf form. The most significant is a wider (but not exclusive) use of the vernacular. Also significant is that the “Liturgy of the Word” was to be conducted facing the people and could be a task shared with qualified ministers. There was also some shortening of the prayers at the foot of the altar and the omission of the Last Gospel. Otherwise the Mass remained unchanged.
Thanks Fr Casey! Those who are discussing TLM Vs NO, are in the perception of the Western World. If there wasn't of Novus Ordo and its local & cultural adaptation, I don't think Africa would be the Continent where Catholicism is growing and sacerdotal vocations are thriving. As stated by Cardinal Arinze before, the way of whorship is different from a culture to another. As an African, The Big Church Organ cannot have the same effect on me, as it would have on a European guy. TLM or NO, Christ is still the Center of the Mass.
I agree, brother! I don't think there should be a competition between TLM and NO, this leads to division and fighting. We should learn from each other. And we should learn to appreciate the beauty of worship in the new mass. May the Lord bless your growing communities, David!
I noticed those who believe Vatican II diluted church tradition are mostly Americans. They seem to have nostalgia for how things used to be done in the US. The Latin mass has almost no place in Africa or Asia. In fact, masses on those continents are deep reflections of the own cultures. How Vatican II of them. None of us should question their devotion because they’re being themselves when they celebrate. Rather than saying Vatican II was heresy, maybe proponents of the Latin mass should just say they prefer to celebrate that way. No one will quarrel them citing Vatican II.
In the Church of England we had a similar change in liturgy style with the introduction of the Alternative Prayer Book in 1980. The Church of England services and liturgy was always said in the traditional English language (Elizabethan style) with a lot of thine, hither, thees etc used. In 1980 the APB launched services in the contemporary English language.
I'm in favour of Vatican II and the reform of the liturgy by Pope Saint Paul VI. However, I haven't been able to find anything to support the claim made at 8:20, that the older tradition was for the celebrant to face the people. There seems to be good evidence for free-standing altars themselves, but not that the liturgy was celebrated facing the people rather than the east, the traditional direction of Jewish worship. I do know that in Rome, some churches were constructed in such a way that facing east in the liturgy meant also facing the people, but that doesn't necessarily make it an older tradition to face the people compared to facing the east (both of which are being followed in such a case).
Dear Fr. Casey, thank you for all of your videos! I am wondering if you could make a special video, talking about the Secular Franciscan Order? Perhaps giving an overview and bringing in your perspectives? Thank you very much!
Hail Mary full of grace the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus. Holy Mary mother of God pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
Having been born and raised Novus ordo, I very seldom felt close to God in Mass. For 48 years the new Mass is all I knew and struggled terribly to feel connected. It was Sunday habit and little more. I knew very little of my Faith despite 8 years in Catholic grade school. Having discovered the TLM a year and 9 months ago has completely changed my life. I never prayed at Mass for all the noise, let alone outside of the Mass. Now I typically pray 3 Rosaries on weekdays and at least 1 Saturday and Sunday. Lex orandi, lex credendi. (I apologize for my spelling). We truly do believe as we worship and the new Mass ain't it. I have participated in an Ad orientum Mass that was Novus Ordo by an excellent young priest. One Mass out of a lifetime of masses is not enough. Ridgid, yes I said "ridgid", adherence to the Traditional Mass and Traditional Catholic teachings is the only way. What is of this world that we should adapt ourselves to? Nothing.
If that’s your stance you should be expecting mass in Aramaic as that was likely the language that Jesus taught in which formed the traditions with the apostles. The Eucharist, readings and gospels of the mass are the center of the celebration. I am ok with them being in local language. The church has provided several valid mass styles to attend. If you didn’t get traction with one then it’s your free choice to attend the one that works for you, but don’t expect that the rest of Laity should conform to what you think is best based on your own circumstances. Your non engagement in earlier life is a reflection on the love you had for Christ at that time. You didn’t care as much and were not searching for illumination. This is not a result of the mass you attended but of your own decision based on what you were taught by your family.
@@Davidjune1970 I have to disagree. I truly believe that poor catechism is the reason for a huge amount of the problems of our Church. How are we to cultivate a true understanding of the Word without truth in our teachings. V2 seems the turning point of a lot of our issues. Ever metric of the health of the Church is in serious decline. The cause of V2 is rooted very deeply in evil
@Davidjune1970 um no. The CatholicnMass was ruined in 1969 and many are still in that Sixties utopian bubble. It's not about vernacular, it's about hacking the Mass, borrowing from the Anglican,, having too many readings and consigning the Eucharist to a footnote. It's very sixties and ineffective. There are no youth at Sixties Mass.
If you don’t pray and you don’t feel like the New Order of Mass “worked” you can’t blame Vatican II for it. Go back to the start of the video. The bit about “conscious and active participation.” What it sounds like is you never participated in mass consciously or actively until you went to a “special” mass and suddenly you believe that Latin and Ad Orientum make the sacrament. The Eucharist is sacred and precious because it is the body and blood. Because it was instituted by Our Lord. Because of the prayers and offerings made by the congregation and the priest. Every time you have received it you have received the same gift. How special or sacred you deem it really depends on you. If you told yourself that what really matters is saying the prayers sincerely. Genuinely preparing yourself to receive communion and purposefully reflecting on the sacrifice Christ made on the cross, then from personal experience I can tell you that the sacrament is very moving and powerful and profound, regardless of what language you hear it in. And I have heard it in many, English, Latin, Malayalam, German, French, etc. I seek out English mass when I travel because I find it easier to focus on what I’m saying and not saying the right thing. Sure I know the Mass well enough to just about go through it on quietly in English while everyone else speak Spanish. But I find focusing on the words distracting from their meaning. Jesus did not speak Latin and neither did the apostles or the first disciples. They spoke Aramaic. The last supper was said in Aramaic. There is nothing special about Latin that gives it more power or spirit or sanctity, other than the mystique you have bestowed on it. You should really be putting that emphasis on the Eucharist itself and the Holy Spirit by whose invocation we receive it, and of course on Jesus our Saviour who died so that we might live in eternal life.
@@emilchandran546 you missed some of my point. The change of the Mass should never have taken place. The reasoning was wrong. To make our Faith more inclusive? If you have gold that you want to share, to enrich another soul you don't try to make it lead. Maybe I didn't explain my thoughts completely but changing something to share it is not sharing what you originally had.
