Adding Elements of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass to the Ordinary Form.

[Chatter163]

This. Personally, if I were in charge of forming the Mass (and, no, I’m not, and never will be, and that is probably a very good thing ) here are the changes I’d make:

1. Keep the current calendar (all the semidoubles, ferials and other days from the Tridentine calendar are a bit confusing and I’m not sure why the distinction was made, rather than the much easier Feast/Solemnity/Ordinary schedule we have today)

The EF uses the 1962 liturgical kalendar. By that time the feasts had been simplified into first, second and third classes, which was essentially carried over and renamed solemnities, feasts and memorials in the OF. There are no doubles or semidoubles in the EF, as there had been in earlier years.

 

[ProVobis]

The OF Mass does not need improvement. It just needs a bit of TLC. The Benedictines can show you how. Believe me the OF Mass done like it is in a monastery of the Solesmes congregation, for whom liturgy is a special vocation, would instantly eliminate all this useless speculation about something way above our pay grade. The spirit of the Benedictine approach to the liturgy is this: this is what the Church has given us, now let us do the very best job possible carrying out the Work of God.

While this may be true, I think it’s fair to point out, as someone already has on another thread, that monastic liturgies are outside the bishop’s jurisdiction. Even the EF, as I remember BrJR telling us, can be done without the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, for example.

I think what the posters are expressing here is a preference for possible options added to the OF but which can be “safely” done within the diocese. Might be possible to get it in as an option but implementing it would be another thiing. We all know by now that Latin, Gregorian chant, ad orientem, etc.can be done within an OF but how long would it be before someone complains about it either to the pastor or bishop? Less than a nanosecond in my diocese. Okay, I exaggerate a little but I think it’s safe to say it would be a courageous move on the priest’s part. As one poster pointed out, it might just be easier to add an EF to the schedule.

 

[zab]

It’s rather curious…there seems to be a widespread view that the EF is “defective” in some way or another (after all, no one can deny that there was “reform” of the Liturgy being called for in the 1960s) and people seem to have no problem saying that. Yet anyone merely implying that OF might not be perfect either seems to be much more looked down upon than doing the same thing about the EF. Is this just “allowed” with the EF because it is merely “extraordinary” and not the “ordinary” form?

Personally, I see nothing wrong with observing “defects” or “non-ideal” things in any Liturgy, as long as it is done in a respectful manner. Obviously in most cases it is not something that should be dwelt upon, since there is likely not anything one can do about it at this point, but I still think they are important points to consider. Then again, you could probably correctly call me a “disobedient skeptic”…lol.

I can accept the way that you explain it here in recognizing “defects” or "non-ideal things in any Liturgy. I think most of us have some complaint or another at one time or another and that it is because we encounter human beings in our community of worshipers with all the flaws and faults that human beings have including ourselves and the priests. That does not mean that we blame the form of the Mass for human failings. We do seem to have more people criticizing the OF than the EF. I have heard of many people giving their preferences for the OF but not “attacking” the EF in the process. Maybe this is because most of us do not know the rubrics or rules, guidelines, whatever, in regards to the EF, where as, many of us know more about liturgical abuses with the OF. Many people who say they prefer the OF are just giving a preference and are not attacking the EF. There are also more OF Masses available than the EF. And honestly, there are a lot of parishes , I hear, that are not ideal parishes that celebrate Mass in the Ordinary Form. Some of us are more blessed than others. I think that people who like the OF are defensive of attacks that seem to come with a superior attitude against the Form rather than the failings of people who attend it or celebrate it. People who attend the EF are not without flaws and faults either.

 

[ProVobis]

We do seem to have more people criticizing the OF than the EF. I have heard of many people giving their preferences for the OF but not “attacking” the EF in the process. Maybe this is because most of us do not know the rubrics or rules, guidelines, whatever, in regards to the EF, where as, many of us know more about liturgical abuses with the OF.

It might be that but it seems that in our society, given a preference of A or B, choosing A would be in fact rejecting B. Don’t believe that? Put yourself in a job applicant’s spot and see someone else getting the position. Or what if you get dumped by a boyfriend or girlfriend. Would you say then “Okay, the other person was your preference.” without feeling rejected?

That said, I say that there are many who attend both the OF and EF without making a conscious preferential decision and without analyzing Vatican II and all of Church’s documents. They just go, especially on the Holy Days or Ash Wednesday inter alia.

 

[zab]

While this may be true, I think it’s fair to point out, as someone already has on another thread, that monastic liturgies are outside the bishop’s jurisdiction. Even the EF, as I remember BrJR telling us, can be done without the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, for example.

I think what the posters are expressing here is a preference for possible options added to the OF but which can be “safely” done within the diocese. Might be possible to get it in as an option but implementing it would be another thiing. We all know by now that Latin, Gregorian chant, ad orientem, etc.can be done within an OF but how long would it be before someone complains about it either to the pastor or bishop? Less than a nanosecond in my diocese.** Okay, I exaggerate a little but I think it’s safe to say it would be a courageous move on the priest’s part.** As one poster pointed out, it might just be easier to add an EF to the schedule.

On the contrary, I think most priests/ pastors, have their own preferences and it is often a matter of preference rather than courage that determines what they do. They have their own preference for the style of vestments they wear and purchase. They may like to use a lot of incense or not as much. They may like to use occasional Latin or they may not prefer the use of Latin. They may want to initiate certain devotions following the Mass or at other times etc. If priests are concerned about doing what is proper and pleasing to God then I don’t think that they are that concerned about what people may think.

 

[zab]

It might be that but it seems that in our society, given a preference of A or B, choosing A would be in fact rejecting B. Don’t believe that? Put yourself in a job applicant’s spot and see someone else getting the position. Or what if you get dumped by a boyfriend or girlfriend. Would you say then “Okay, the other person was your preference.” without feeling rejected?

That said, I say that there are many who attend both the OF and EF without making a conscious preferential decision and without analyzing Vatican II and all of Church’s documents. They just go, especially on the Holy Days or Ash Wednesday inter alia.

No, I don’t believe that.

P.S. Think about it. Are you saying that if one prefers the EF that they are rejecting the OF?

 

[ProVobis]

The EF uses the 1962 liturgical kalendar. By that time the feasts had been simplified into first, second and third classes, which was essentially carried over and renamed solemnities, feasts and memorials in the OF. There are no doubles or semidoubles in the EF, as there had been in earlier years.

I agree that the EF calendar (for all days of the week) is much easier now than before, although I acknowledge that I still get confused somewhat at the end of the Pentecost season. But since they generally have handouts now or listed on the bulletins, that problem is easily solved.

 

[OraLabora]

I definitely believe you that your experience of the OF is probably as beautiful as the OF could get. I’m pretty sure, though, that the experience of this Benedictine monastery’s OF Mass by many “traditionalists” would not “instantly eliminate all this useless speculation about something way above our pay grade”, i.e., that it would stop the claims that some people make which say the EF is better than than the OF.

And I say this, because I actually just read an extremely interesting article yesterday. Obviously I can’t get into the specifics, because the author was clearly “pitting the OF and the EF” against each other…lol. Very generally, though, he spoke of “merit” and whether one form of the Mass was more meritorious for both the people and the priest than the other form. He brought up two aspects of “merit” - one was “intrinsic” merit and the other “extrinsic” merit. He noted that it is indisputable that with regards to intrinsic value or merit, is equal between the two forms (i.e., both are the Sacrifice of Christ and are infinitely valuable in this regard), but with regards to extrinsic value or merit, the two forms are not equal. And since the author was a FSSP priest, I am sure you can assume which form of the Mass he was advocating as being more meritorious/valuable for both the people and the faithful. Lol.

Anyway, I just mention this because there are still probably a large number of “traditionalists” who believe such things as what this FSSP was writing about, and that therefore, many of these such people would not be satisfied by attending a Mass even such as the one at your Benedictine monastery.

And, just FYI, the FSSP priest in this article laid out six factors in the extrinsic merit of a Mass, and the rite itself was just one factor. And so due to the possibility of variance in degree of the other five factors, he did mention the possibility of the OF being more extrinsically meritorious than the EF, though that was only on the whole and not with regards to the rituals themselves.

Also, one more comment regarding “way above our pay grade” - I imagine that some people who speculate about these things have their “speculations” based on the writings of people for whom these subjects are not “way above [their] pay grade” - just a thought.

Well it is way above our pay grade. We have no authority to effect any change to the structure of the Mass. We may have some limited local authority if we’re in music ministry or on liturgical committees, but our boundaries are (or should be) the Missal as it stands. While it may be fun to speculate on making this or that change to the OF, I think for many it is unhelpful.

I don’t want to get into an argument with an FSSP priest; I’ve heard similar arguments from our abbot advocating the OF over the EF, for theological, aesthetic (he’s a first-class musician and prize-winning organist) and practical reasons. As long as there are humans there will be different ways of looking at things and EF vs OF is no different. I’ve seen EF Masses on YouTube with all the stops pulled and for my tastes I find it over the top and distracting (in particular the vestments…). But then I’ve been to an OF Mass in Italy that would appear, to the uninitiated, to be identical to an EF High Mass. It was in Latin, ad orientem, and with the most ornate vestments I’ve every seen and equal to any EF video I’ve seen. So I don’t think it’s the form of the Mass, the extrinsic merit is rather due to the effort that is put into it. The FSSP clearly put a lot of effort into celebrating the EF. Back in the pre-VII days though, I’ll bet dollars to donuts that there were plenty of Masses that were rushed, said carelessly, with iffy music, etc. If it came back as the only form, the same disobedient people who ignore the OF rubrics would likely ignore the EF rubrics if the EF became the OF.

What I like about our abbey’s Mass is first and foremost the music (I just happen to love Gregorian chant and sing in a schola), but also how beautifully it all flows with an elegant simplicity, in a church that while very modern in style is recognizable as an abbey church and has a very austere and simple decoration but with noble materials (granite, stone, brick, quality wood, brass, marble) that appeals to monastic simplicity. And also how the complexity of the liturgy is adapted to the degree of the celebration (weekday, feast, solemnity, Sunday, etc.) yet without losing its reverence even in an simple weekday Mass in Ordinary Time (which still has a cappella Gregorian chant).

The Missal is also always followed without fail to the letter, and the music is from the Graduale Romanum.

Compared to the EF Masses I’ve seen on YouTube (there is no convenient one that is non-SSPX for me to attend live), it sort of makes this debate, well, redundant.

 

[bobballen_18]

Well it is way above our pay grade. We have no authority to effect any change to the structure of the Mass. We may have some limited local authority if we’re in music ministry or on liturgical committees, but our boundaries are (or should be) the Missal as it stands. While it may be fun to speculate on making this or that change to the OF, I think for many it is unhelpful.

Sure, fair enough.

I don’t want to get into an argument with an FSSP priest; I’ve heard similar arguments from our abbot advocating the OF over the EF, for theological, aesthetic (he’s a first-class musician and prize-winning organist) and practical reasons. As long as there are humans there will be different ways of looking at things and EF vs OF is no different. I’ve seen EF Masses on YouTube with all the stops pulled and for my tastes I find it over the top and distracting (in particular the vestments…). But then I’ve been to an OF Mass in Italy that would appear, to the uninitiated, to be identical to an EF High Mass. It was in Latin, ad orientem, and with the most ornate vestments I’ve every seen and equal to any EF video I’ve seen. So I don’t think it’s the form of the Mass, the extrinsic merit is rather due to the effort that is put into it. The FSSP clearly put a lot of effort into celebrating the EF. Back in the pre-VII days though, I’ll bet dollars to donuts that there were plenty of Masses that were rushed, said carelessly, with iffy music, etc. If it came back as the only form, the same disobedient people who ignore the OF rubrics would likely ignore the EF rubrics if the EF became the OF.

The priest writing this article cited various authors (pre-1962, maybe some post-1962) which stated six ways by which the merit of a Mass is determined. As you put it, the “effort that is put in to it” is in a sense reflective of some of those ways, so that would have something to do with it - but the “effort that is put in to it” is not the sole criterion. The rite itself is also part of what determines the merit of a Mass (according to this priest, at least).

I’m sure you’re correct - “traditionalists” have been gleefully told by anti-EF people many times that it was not all “peachy fine” with regards to the Liturgy pre-1965 or whatever. And I don’t deny that. Obviously, if only one form of the Liturgy was celebrated, then there would have been a wide range of ways in which it was celebrated (within the rubrics though, in most cases, which isn’t always the case today with the OF). I don’t see how that affects the discussion with regards to the merits of the rite itself, regardless of how it is celebrated.

What I like about our abbey’s Mass is first and foremost the music (I just happen to love Gregorian chant and sing in a schola), but also how beautifully it all flows with an elegant simplicity, in a church that while very modern in style is recognizable as an abbey church and has a very austere and simple decoration but with noble materials (granite, stone, brick, quality wood, brass, marble) that appeals to monastic simplicity. And also how the complexity of the liturgy is adapted to the degree of the celebration (weekday, feast, solemnity, Sunday, etc.) yet without losing its reverence even in an simple weekday Mass in Ordinary Time (which still has a cappella Gregorian chant).

The Missal is also always followed without fail to the letter, and the music is from the Graduale Romanum.

Again, I’m glad you have a reverent, beautiful Liturgy at your monastery - you are very fortunate

Compared to the EF Masses I’ve seen on YouTube (there is no convenient one that is non-SSPX for me to attend live), it sort of makes this debate, well, redundant.

Indeed, it can be very redundant, but it’s not going to go away. Despite the fact that, as our friend ojtm loves to point out, that only like 3% of parishes in the US offer the Latin Mass, interest is still rising, and the issue could potentially get even more “coverage” in the future. This is why I believe, not only now, but potentially even more in the long run, that having two forms of the one rite is divisive. This is why discussions like these, while they may be “redundant” to you, are still important. Obviously there is a degree of speculation involved, and we can never be sure of what will happen in the future, but in my opinion, it is very conceivable that the Latin Mass continues to grow, and that because of that, it’s also possible that the issue of having two forms of the same rite will become more and more divisive. I’m not really “relishing” this idea…lol…just seems to me that it could become more and more of a reality.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

All three of these can be done already. [edited]

 

[maryjk]

All three of these can be done already. Many priests do don’t do it out of liturgical laziness I guess.

Most times I read through these, “The EF is better than the OF.” threads, and laugh.

But when someone says that many priests are just lazy, well, that gets me pretty upset.

Unbelievable.

 

[JuniperoSerra]

I have seen the triple cross and triple loop done by Traditional priests in the OF who only celebrate the OF. I have also seen EF Priests do it for the OF. I don’t know if the blessing of the water cruet can be done, but I would think not for there are different things to do with blessed water.

How sad it is to see you use the titles “Traditional priests” and “EF Priests.” That’s so terribly divisive.

They’re Catholic priests, Latin Rite Catholic priests in this context, period.

 

[ProVobis]

Compared to the EF Masses I’ve seen on YouTube (there is no convenient one that is non-SSPX for me to attend live), it sort of makes this debate, well, redundant.

That (inconvenience) is probably why many wish at least part of the EF in their own parish liturgies.

 

[CountrySteve]

Here is a video of a “traditional” way to pray the OF Mass

youtube.com/watch?v=OkxvFeQNbvA

 

[silvergrasshopp]

Can a priest add elements of the Extraordinary Form to the Ordinary Form of the Mass? Such as blessing the water cruet, making the sign of the cross over the corporal with the paten and chalice before setting them down at the offertory and incensing the offerings with three crosses and three loops.
If anyone can think of anything else could they please add them. Thanks.

GIRM 277 (the last sentence)
The Priest incenses the offerings with three swings of the thurible or by making the Sign of the Cross over the offerings with the thurible before going on to incense the cross and the altar.

Any other way of incensing the offerings is a violation of this rule.