Review: Mass of Ages Part II

 

After months of hearing about it from others, I finally got around to watching Mass of Ages Part II with my wife. 

Overall, it was a well done introduction to the changes that led to the new Mass, after Vatican II. The film did a good job of interspersing facts, humor, personal stories, average folks, and professionals. The scenery was great, and the juxtaposition of the new and old Masses (and Council documents) in both video and written form was a masterstroke. 

The Good

It is important for us traditionalists to remember that liturgy and history are boring to most people. The film did a great job of making the facts come to life. I’m willing to accept the cartoonish antics at the beginning (though the Titanic reference was overdone) because they at least made a dry, polarizing topic engaging. I will forever refer to the Gloria my former parish sings every Sunday as the My Little Pony Gloria. The animation of the edits to the Missal was brilliant. 

The overall angle of severing the New Mass from Vatican II was a great choice. “But Vatican II changed the Mass” is the most common argument made against the traditional Mass (old Mass), and the doc patiently, throughly defenestrates that argument. 

The inclusion of feedback from the bishops (Council fathers) during the 1967 “test drive” of the new Mass, particularly Cardinal Heenan of England, was eye opening. The doc had a nice, light approach of quoting Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC: Vatican II’s document on the liturgy) vs what actually happened to the liturgy. Video comparisons of the beginning of Mass and consecration in the old and new were fair and well done. 

The film did a balanced job of highlighting the abuses of Bugnini in pushing his agenda while gently reminding the audience that ultimate responsibility remained with Pope Paul VI. Using and citing Yves Chiron’s biography of Bugnini was wise.

I appreciated the blend of bishops, priests, and credentialed liturgical experts like Dr. Kwasniewski alongside ordinary, non-credentialed people. I especially appreciated the balanced, non polemical perspective of Dom Alcuin Reid. 

While his inclusion was an interesting choice, I thought Michael Knowles of the Daily Wire had one of the most salient points. The new Mass, by lowering the reverence given to the Blessed Sacrament, creates cognitive dissonance. The same goes for severing the altar and the tabernacle. It is difficult to believe in Christ’s true presence in the Eucharist when troops of pantsuited extraordinary ministers hand it out like a free sample at the grocery store. And so many respond by discarding their belief in the True Presence.

This is not an exaggeration. During a high school trip to Annapolis, we somehow attended a Mass at the naval chapel during which bewildered non-Catholics joined the Communion line, took a host from the minister, and said “Thank you.” It is hard to imagine this happening at an old Mass. 

The film also did well to legitimize itself by including three bishops, a monsignor, a former curial secretary, and experts on liturgy and music. Though it would’ve been nice to hear from a nun. 

Missed Opportunities

The doc’s biggest missed opportunity is a lack of clarity around its audience. Is the audience the average old Mass attendee or someone with no exposure to the old Mass? Because if the latter, then I can think of a few ways the film could’ve handled the material differently. 

The film devoted much energy to breaking the equivalence between Vatican II and the new Mass. But a massive missed opportunity was breaking the link between the Pope who called Vatican II and the new Mass. Pope John XXIII fired Bugnini and published Veterum Sapientia, an apostolic constitution demanding the priests be trained in Latin and that Latin remain the language of the liturgy. Highlighting this would’ve made very clear that the Pope who called the Council did not want, still less demand, the new Mass. Coupled with the quotes from SC and the Council fathers, this may be a tight enough case to really move people. It moved me. 

It is tough to blame the film for this, but it does not dare to broach the meddling with the liturgy before the Council. Dr. Kwasniewski explains that Bugnini’s first major position was leading the drafting of SC. The good doctor must be heavily filtering himself here because he knows better than almost anyone that Bugnini was also a member (though not a leader) of the liturgical commissions in the 50s that threw out traditional Holy Week, reduced commemorations of the saints on Sundays, removed the confiteor before Communion, and threw out most Octaves (Corpus Christi, Assumption, Sacred Heart, Apostles). 

Also unmentioned is the fact that Paul VI worked closely with Pius XII daily for 20 years and saw himself as fulfilling the liturgical reforms begun by Pius XII. I give them a pass on this one: it is hard enough being a trad, it is almost unthinkable to criticize Pius XII. Yet the film undermines this restraint when Joseph Shaw says that the reverent atmosphere of the old Mass cannot be recreated in the new Mass because the new Mass is a product of a man-centered view of the liturgy. This is true, but it’s too much for someone attending the new Mass who you’re trying to convince to give the old Mass a try. 

I get that the film is called “Mass of Ages” but it is weird that it doesn’t even mention how the reforms also changed the calendar (removed Septuagesima, the Octave of Pentecost, rejiggered most saints’ feast days) and the Divine Office. This is all the more strange given that Dr. Kwasniewski, a participant in the film, authored an article quoting Louis Bouyer, also mentioned in the film, saying how awful the reform of the calendar was. Why not fully expose how recklessly everything was changed all at once? 

Unforced errors

Traditional Catholics must repress the urge to mention freemasonry in front of normal people. Regardless of how reasonable the case is, it’s an automatic turnoff for many. The few minutes covering Bugnini’s alleged masonry and related investigations in the Vatican add little to the story but tinge the creators with enough conspiracy theory juju that it undermines the reliability of their other, legitimate claims. If this couldn’t be avoided, make the freemasonry discussion a separate supplemental video. At least this part was short.

Related, if this audience is on-the-fence-about-tradition faithful Catholics, it’s best to avoid featuring controversial personalities. First, avoid quoting Archbishop Lefebvre during the vignette on the bishops’ feedback on the reforms in 1967. Why raise the specter of the SSPX and excommunicated traditionalists when you don’t have to? And I don’t really know why, but Taylor Marshall is another controversial figure and his remarks didn’t add enough to the film to offset the adverse reflex some faithful Catholics have toward him. 

I understand asking for donations at the beginning. But again, if the audience is faithful catholics with no experience of the old Mass, this is a distraction that gives the tentative viewer, who is only watching because a friend sent it to them, a good 90 seconds to stop watching. 

It is very, very difficult to cover the liturgical reforms of the 60s without turning Bugnini into a bogeyman. On the whole, I think the film does a balanced job, focusing on real quotes from relevant documents and legitimate witnesses to the events. Still, it was not necessary to create dark, cartoon Bugnini. There are enough pictures of him that they could’ve just overlayed his quotes over actual photos of him. 

Again, almost impossible to blame the creators here, but Sacrosanctum Concilium is redacted to fit a traditional agenda. Reading the whole document, while it’s mostly restrained around the Mass, it’s a wrecking ball in many ways. It called for a reform of the liturgical books as soon as possible, emphasized full and active participation “above all else”, talked of removing useless repetitions, demanded a new cycle of Mass readings, abolished the hour of Prime in the Divine Office, called for a reform of the rites of all seven sacraments, and even talked about fixing a calendar date for Easter (!). 

Saint Thomas Aquinas sets the standard by beginning his articles with the strongest arguments against his positions. Admitting the passages in the document that directly call for reforming the traditional liturgy, and gently showing how not every pastoral recommendation by a Council needs to be implemented under penalty of Hell, would strengthen the audience’s trust in the other claims made by the film. 

My professional experience has taught me that there are always some nerds, and naysayers, who do the research and will loudly call you out if you window dress or stretch the truth. I’m afraid the film left itself open to legitimate criticism here. 

Closing

Mass of Ages Part II is well produced, well researched, and very accessible. Recommended watching (and distributing) for those who want a way to explain their love of the old Mass, and the problems of the new Mass, to their friends and family.