WI No liturgical reform in the Roman Catholic Church?

WI after Vatican II the Roman Catholic Church continued on with the Tridentine, or Latin, Mass? One of the reasons Pope Paul VI cited for his new Mass (the one most celebrated today) was to make the Mass more relevant to the modern world. Was this reform necessary? Could the church continue on with a medieval liturgical mindset up until the present day?

A minority of Catholics (like me) still worship at the Latin Mass, so in some respects they are living this WI scenario. But what would have happened if reform never happened and everyone continued on as before? Would this decision alienate people from the Church, or would alienation stem from other factors that have come to pass in OTL?
 
Hm- so are you saying getting rid of the liturgical reforms all together? I could see a scenario where most of the reforms of the Novus Ordo are kept (like having the priest face the congregation), but the liturgical language remains Latin.

The Novus Ordo not only permitted use of the vernacular, but it also increased the participation of laypeople in the mass... considering the massive decline in the number of priests and religious since then... (on the other hand, some attribute that decline in part to the V-2 reforms...)

Do the other reforms of the Second Vatican still occur? Though the abolition of the Latin Mass was probably the most visible reform...
 
Was doing mass in the Latin language fully abolished? I thought it was just made optional, alongside the relevant vernacular.
 
Was doing mass in the Latin language fully abolished? I thought it was just made optional, alongside the relevant vernacular.
I believe it was discouraged, and until relatively recently special permission from the Bishop was needed to do the Tridentine Mass. (I believe the His Holiness loosened the restrictions a few years back, though)

Though, a parish priest could always do the Novus Ordo in Ecclesiastical Latin without special permission, IIRC.
 
I was thinking of a scenario where the "Novus Ordo" never happened. It's true that the new Mass can be said in Latin, though most priests who want to say Mass in Latin just say the Tridentine Mass anyway. But I'm thinking of a world where the priest does not face the people and there is no vernacular option at all.

The WI questions whether the modern world really needed this reform. My contention is that the Mass did not need reformation, and the Church would have survived just fine without the reforms. But perhaps there are other complications, like the internet, mass media etc. that would render a ritual that is half-whispered in a dead language irrelevant at best. We live in a televised, media-saturated world -- perhaps people would gradually become disenchanted with the Mass if the priest didn't face the people and communicate directly with them with eye contact and gestures. OTL the Tridentine Mass is popular again, but that popularity might not have developed in an alternative scenario.

BTW Pope Benedict removed all restrictions on the Tridentine Mass. Now, any priest can say it at any time (I know a good number of priests who say it almost exclusively.)
 
I was thinking of a scenario where the "Novus Ordo" never happened. It's true that the new Mass can be said in Latin, though most priests who want to say Mass in Latin just say the Tridentine Mass anyway. But I'm thinking of a world where the priest does not face the people and there is no vernacular option at all.

The WI questions whether the modern world really needed this reform. My contention is that the Mass did not need reformation, and the Church would have survived just fine without the reforms. But perhaps there are other complications, like the internet, mass media etc. that would render a ritual that is half-whispered in a dead language irrelevant at best. We live in a televised, media-saturated world -- perhaps people would gradually become disenchanted with the Mass if the priest didn't face the people and communicate directly with them with eye contact and gestures. OTL the Tridentine Mass is popular again, but that popularity might not have developed in an alternative scenario.

BTW Pope Benedict removed all restrictions on the Tridentine Mass. Now, any priest can say it at any time (I know a good number of priests who say it almost exclusively.)

Well, most of the non-liturgical part of Vatican II would still happen, IMO - most of Vatican II was mere reiteration of what the Church has taught for centuries.
 
WI after Vatican II the Roman Catholic Church continued on with the Tridentine, or Latin, Mass? One of the reasons Pope Paul VI cited for his new Mass (the one most celebrated today) was to make the Mass more relevant to the modern world. Was this reform necessary? Could the church continue on with a medieval liturgical mindset up until the present day?

A minority of Catholics (like me) still worship at the Latin Mass, so in some respects they are living this WI scenario. But what would have happened if reform never happened and everyone continued on as before? Would this decision alienate people from the Church, or would alienation stem from other factors that have come to pass in OTL?

Pope Pius XII was in favor of an incremental liturgical reform. Here is paragraph 60 of his encyclical Mediator Dei.

60. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See. [emphasis mine]

The missal was revised several times during his Papacy by Bagnini. Mostly these were changes in Holy Week rites but in 1958 he approved Dialogue Mass which had been experimented with in some dioceses previously without Rome's approval. There are some signs that if he had lived longer he would have next approved an incremental vernacularization.

Given this background it is hard to see how the Second Vatican Council would not have approved at least some form of vernacularization. As it was the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy had only 2 explicit changes---resurrecting the Prayer of the Faithful and vernacularization subject to the approval of the national bishops conferences. Everything else the CSL said about the liturgy were vague and not completely consistent general principles. It will be noted that the CSL passed by an extremely large margin in even the preliminary secret ballots.
 
Pope Pius XII was in favor of an incremental liturgical reform. Here is paragraph 60 of his encyclical Mediator Dei.

60. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See. [emphasis mine]

The missal was revised several times during his Papacy by Bagnini. Mostly these were changes in Holy Week rites but in 1958 he approved Dialogue Mass which had been experimented with in some dioceses previously without Rome's approval. There are some signs that if he had lived longer he would have next approved an incremental vernacularization.

Given this background it is hard to see how the Second Vatican Council would not have approved at least some form of vernacularization. As it was the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy had only 2 explicit changes---resurrecting the Prayer of the Faithful and vernacularization subject to the approval of the national bishops conferences. Everything else the CSL said about the liturgy were vague and not completely consistent general principles. It will be noted that the CSL passed by an extremely large margin in even the preliminary secret ballots.

I agree fully that ATL vernacularization of the Tridentine Missal would have happened inevitably. It has happened OTL to some extent -- there is now a split in the Tridentine community over whether the readings for Mass should be read in the vernacular straight from the altar. Rome has given permission for this in Summorum Pontificum. Still, many people hesitate since they consider any vernacularization a slippery slope to the Novus Ordo.

Getting back to the WI: the Tridentine ritual, especially Low Mass, is pretty much a "one-man-show" with the priest doing most of the work. Laypeople besides male servers are not permitted to assist the priest or even enter the sanctuary. But nowadays laypeople (men and women) because of the Novus Ordo freely move about the sanctuary doing all sorts of things. This is very much in keeping with egalitarianism and the idea that the people "are Church". If the Church never permitted laypeople to take up some of the roles formerly reserved to the priest, would people become more and more disenchanted with services? Would people get frustrated with clericalism and the lack of women's participation, or just not know any better? The US is almost a gender-blind society in many respects, and the old rituals certainly discriminate on that basis (or against anyone with blessed fingers, really.)
 
I agree fully that ATL vernacularization of the Tridentine Missal would have happened inevitably. It has happened OTL to some extent -- there is now a split in the Tridentine community over whether the readings for Mass should be read in the vernacular straight from the altar. Rome has given permission for this in Summorum Pontificum. Still, many people hesitate since they consider any vernacularization a slippery slope to the Novus Ordo.

Getting back to the WI: the Tridentine ritual, especially Low Mass, is pretty much a "one-man-show" with the priest doing most of the work. Laypeople besides male servers are not permitted to assist the priest or even enter the sanctuary. But nowadays laypeople (men and women) because of the Novus Ordo freely move about the sanctuary doing all sorts of things. This is very much in keeping with egalitarianism and the idea that the people "are Church". If the Church never permitted laypeople to take up some of the roles formerly reserved to the priest, would people become more and more disenchanted with services? Would people get frustrated with clericalism and the lack of women's participation, or just not know any better? The US is almost a gender-blind society in many respects, and the old rituals certainly discriminate on that basis (or against anyone with blessed fingers, really.)

Of course people would. People have been dissatisfied with the Holy Sacrifice through the ages. But the majority of Catholics would probably resign themselves to it.
 
If the Tridentine Rite of the Mass still continued to be main official mass of the Catholic Church to the present day I think there would be so many subtle and gradual changes in the liturgy over the past 50 years it would be almost rendered to the point of little substantial difference between that and the Novus Ordo rite we know today. I think it would be say by now the majority of Catholic dioceses and archdioceses around the world will have adapted the vernacular for their liturgy and the Vatican will have made Latin optional. The Vatican will still have addressed the issue of anti-semitism and reached out to the Jews. Ecumenical dialogue or ecumenism will have commenced and grow more or less as in OTL, and with the influence of Fr. John Courtney Murray the Vatican will have issued its fateful encyclical on religious liberty between 1964 to 1968. So even if there was never a Vatican II and the replacing of the Tridentine Rite with the Novus Ordo many of the changes in Church would still have taken place.
 
Top