Observations on Mass, Then and Now

From Catholic Online, here is an excerpt from an interview with Father Jeffrey Fasching. He gives us his take on Vatican II, Liturgy, and aberrations that have emerged in the last few decades.

Some common misunderstandings with respect to Vatican II include the following:

The priest facing the people was not introduced by Vatican II. It became the unwritten practice in the Novus Ordo mass without any directives from Vatican II or by the Missal of 1969. Cardinal Ratzinger said in The Spirit of the Liturgy that the priest in facing the congregation is tempted "to be an actor." The Mass is not a performance, therefore applause is inappropriate. The Mass is a sacrifice and must transcend the personality of the priest.

The official language of the Novus Ordo is Latin and the Mass may be celebrated either in Latin or in English. The practice of receiving Communion in the hand was not called for by Vatican II. This sprang up as an abuse and was subsequently accepted by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1977 by a slim majority. This indult can be withdrawn at any time.

The Motu Proprio of Pope Benedict making the Traditional Mass more available should be viewed as "reform of the reform," a renewal of the Church began by liturgical renewal. The vast majority of the thousands of bishops at the Council neither wished for, nor mandated, a radical reform of the liturgy. It was never the intention to abandon the use of Latin or to require the celebrant to face the people. Nothing had been said about standing to receive Communion in the hand, or the use of altar girls. No mention had been made about the use of multiple Canons. In the Roman rite there had always been one Eucharistic prayer. The many changes in the liturgy were for the most part made after Vatican II. Interpretation of the Council's intent was motivated by what became known as "the Spirit of Vatican II."

My question has to do with the Novus Ordo. In terms of how it is offered, Liturgy has become so disparate in the United States. From one parish to another, impromptus and abuses seem to dominate to such an extent that it's difficult to even speak of a common "Novus Ordo Liturgy." Where can one find a "pure" Novus Ordo, carried out precisely as the Second Vatican Council envisioned it? I dare say, it's hard to find, even at the more tame parishes. The innovations mentioned above by Father, inserted after the Council, have long since become the unquestioned norm. Now, I'm not questioning the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass, but merely observing how muddled the issue has become as a result of so many priests who feel totally empowered to do their own "thing" and to heck with the norms, documents or consequences.

Say what you want about the Traditional Mass (I happen to prefer it), or the people it attracts, but the uniformity it offers is probably one of its greatest assets. It is almost structured to resist excessive tinkering and silliness. To be sure, anything can be open to possible abuse, but the so-called rigidity of the Old Mass, usually listed as one of its defects, serves as a bulwark against a priest (and there are many these days) inclined to take center stage and just wing it.

I lament the loss of an authentic liturgical culture and identity; one that is consistent with tradition and compatible with beauty.