Novus Ordo and the Vatican

Yeah I can’t identify with the trad frustration with irreverent liturgies. I simply don’t see them. I think there’s two factors to this: 

 1. The quality of your diocese. Mine is very high. I went to another diocese once and I saw the altar servers holding up the Eucharist during the consecration and I was like woah wtf? Part of the reaction comes from the environment they find themselves in, reactionary to it. This one is a lot more understandable. 

 2. Ideology. What I claim is a reverent mass to them is irreverent. I think all my dioceses masses are reverent, but they don’t think so because they think X factor that the NO often does is the irreverent factor. Guitars perhaps, or not having altar rails, receiving on the hand, etc etc. This is just the obnoxious type of trad you’ll find online that ruins it for the rest. 

I sometimes suspect that the “irreverent” and “liturgical abuse” I hear from some is largely overblown and just them deciding they don’t like it.

I’m sure irreverence and abuse happen, but I’ve never seen it

WRT the placement of the Tabernacle, I remember reading that one of the main reasons it was moved was for theological reasons: having consecrated hosts already present on the altar obscures the momentousness of what happens at the Words of Consecration.

ETA: and that having the Tabernacle on the high altar was a more recent development than most people think.

The pope has repeatedly said that liturgies should be reverent and following rubrics.

But there are over 400,000 priests in the world. The Vatican does not have the time for that kind of micromanagement, nor is it really their purview. Disciplining them is the duty of their bishops.

This is why you see a big variation in reverence from diocese to diocese.

I personally feel like this is the realm of the local bishops. Not every single thing needs to come from Rome. And if your own parish is having these issues, then they should be brought to the pastor. If that fails and abuse continues, the bishop needs to be brought in. If the bishop is pressing for abuse, the there is still the archbishop and finally appeal to Rome. But I think a lot of people are just content to see abuse, roll their eyes, and either move on or just change parishes. But this idea that we need EVERYTHING to come from the top seems unhealthy.

such as clown masses

I'm sorry, but what??

The debates and conflicts over the liturgy is really a symptom of a larger problem. The real issue is that Vatican II failed to achieve it's stated objectives and the Church is trying to figure out what to do next. You have factions that say Vatican II went too far and should be turned back and others that said it didn't go far enough. Most fall somewhere in the middle on a spectrum. This conflict has been going on since the end of the council, but it is worse now because of the Vatican.

The main thing holding the Church together were the strong Popes elected after Vatican II. When parts of the Church went crazy, you could always count on the Vatican to come in and set things right. Now the Vatican is just plain ineffective. It seems incapable in understanding the actual problems different dioceses around the world are facing, and it doesn't provide effective solutions. It's telling that the main driving force of action in the Church, for both good and bad, are coming from national councils of bishops. There a chaos in the Church that hasn't been seen in living memory, and everyone is upset about it.

How this gets fixed is beyond me, and beyond anyone in this subreddit. I just believe it's better if people have a better idea of what problems we are actually facing.

I have not heard of a single thing the Vatican has done in the past 5 or so years to attempt to stop liturgical abuse (or less than that, liturgical laziness). I don't expect it until there's a new pope who's sent the current DDW members to be the papal delegation to Mars.