Balance in liturgical discussions

  • Thread starter Thread starter jesusalright4me
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jesusalright4me

Guest
Hi guys. Just thinking out loud here.

I am someone who embraces the Extraordinary Form. I think in many respects, it is superior to the Ordinary Form due to the beautiful prayers that were removed, the more precise rubrics, and a far better claim to organic development. That said:

Have any of you who prefer or even think the EF to be superior to the OF seen some deficiencies in it? It seems that many people in traditional circles are very black and white about this kind of stuff. In discussions about liturgy I have had, it seems as if many view the EF to be flawless. I disagree. I think (good) vernacular translations for parts of the mass aren’t necessarily a bad thing. I think a more spread out psalter makes sense for the increasingly busy world that secular priests live in. I see some merits to the new sanctoral cycle, and some of the changes that were made for the mass (e.g. removing the “mystery of faith” out of the words of Consecration). Those are just a few opinions I have.

The “all-or-nothing” approach to liturgy is quite tiring to me to be honest, and it seems to hinder any sort of real improvements to the liturgical situation in the long run. Have any other Catholics in more traditional circles noticed this issue?
 
I think a lot of IMPORTANT prayers have been lost, I’m thinking here about the exorcisms of the traditional baptism etc. I also wouldn’t mind a vernacular EF Mass, though I love the sound and effect of Latin. Because the reasoning is different for the two forms, I also don’t mind girls serving at the altar in the OF.
I also like the amount of free choice inherent to the OF, that is a personal choice among options, not free-form make-it-up-as-you-go.
 
I agree, I would not mind a partially vernacular EF mass. I would say that the ordinaries could be required in Latin, since those are repeated and over time the laity begin to grasp the meaning of them. The chanted Epistle and Gospel could be adapted to English tones fairly easily I would think.

In terms of the proper chants, I am conflicted. The chants from the Liber Usalis have a strong history of organic development and are beautiful. I think if a vernacular EF mass were ever allowed, you would have to have experts in chant, poetry, and music come together to adapt the traditional chants to English. Some people have attempted this already, but in my honest opinion, they always fall short of the older chants because they are very simplified with the goal of making them easier to learn. Because of all of this, it just seems a better option to keep them in Latin.

I think the free choice of the OF is advantageous in some regards, but the EF is nice in that you know what you are getting essentially every time, which is something that the OF suffers from. It is nice to know, for example, that when we are singing the mass, we are singing all of it, Scripture and everything in between. It creates better unity and continuity, so that the laypeople and alter servers are not thrown off when a new pastor comes to town who chooses completely different options than the former pastor. Also, in many respects, I have noticed that the “easiest” options of the OF are the ones that are chosen and become, over time, the status quo. I think that the intention of the many options of the OF was better adaptability to different cultures, which has its advantages in non-European cultures with hardly any familiarity with Catholicism.

Concerning altar servers, hmm. I think that there is nothing intrinsically evil about women serving at the altar. Some trads seem to have this sort of mindset. Even before the reforms, women were allowed to serve in very extreme circumstances. I do think that an all-male sanctuary is in more keeping with history and the theology of the priesthood, however.

One thing I appreciate about the Ordinary Form is the concept of the sign of peace. Granted, I think that the way it was implemented was poor; if the laity would have been required to exchange the sign in a reverent way like the clergy do in the EF, I do not think the sign of peace would carry with it the casualness that it does today.
 
Last edited:
One of the main complaints about TLM is that no one could understand, felt left out and were lost. I don’t understand why the mass could not be said in the vernacular using the exact same rubric. It’s already translated in the Missal anyway so why not just read the English? If that is what would have happened I would have no negative feelings about the Novus Ordo.
 
I have been to both EF and OF, and the OF done in a variety of ways, including ad orientem, in Latin, and more. My comments echo yours - they’ve nearly all been equally reverent and certainly all equally the Mass.
 
I can see your struggle. I must add, however, that actual, both interior (being the most important) and exterior participation are more than possible in the Extraordinary Form. Every time I go, I am making signs of the cross, singing responses/hymns, making some of the responses in a low tone, standing and kneeling, etc. I think the reason so many people seemed disengaged from the liturgy before Vatican II was precisely because they were taught to be disengaged. For many places, it was the “go to mass and wait for the bells to pay attention” mentality. Hand missals had begun to address that issue before the council began.

I also understand your issue with being able to hear what is going on. To be fair, however, I will say that at my Latin mass chapel, I can hear the parts of the mass that I am supposed to hear rather well, even at a low mass. At high mass, you can hear so many parts of the mass rather easily precisely because they are sung and chanted. What is more, our congregation loves to chant all of the ordinary of the mass! It is great, and I cannot help but to wonder if this is the external participation of the Ordinary Form enriching the mentality of those of us who go to the Extraordinary Form.

I do think that it is necessary to have (healthy and charitable) discussion on the EF and the OF, and even debate as to what aspects of each are better. Otherwise, I do not see how the mutual enrichment Benedict XVI called for happening. And while I think that the EF is superior to the OF from a prayerful and theological standpoint, the point I was making in the original post was that many who go to the EF take an all or nothing approach, implying that the EF is perfect, and that the OF has no merits whatsoever. This is a mistake.

I definitely recommend checking out an EF should you ever have the chance!
 
I go to EF masses occasionally. If it were in vernacular, but otherwise the same, I’d happily frequent EF masses.

I am lucky enough to be at a parish that has very reverent OF masses with a good bit of Latin mixed in. So, I happily frequent OF masses and occasionally go to an EF mass when my weekday obligations allow it.
 
Last edited:
I prefer to attend the EF Masses at my parish, but will on occasion attend one of our OF Masses for a variety of reasons.

I’m more distracted during the OF Mass, and find on the whole my mind wanders less when I attend the EF Mass, because I’m focused on praying the Mass.
 
That is me too. I occasionally go to the OF when I have to. Much of the time, I am stopping myself from doing extra actions that were removed (e.g. the sign of the cross during the Sanctus, striking my breast thrice during the Agnus Dei, saying the “Lord I am not worthy” more than one time, etc.) I bet it is challenging for some priests who celebrate both forms to keep them separate.
 
Last edited:
jesusalright4me said:
I think in many respects, it is superior to the Ordinary Form due to the beautiful prayers that were removed, the more precise rubrics, and a far better claim to organic development.
Click to expand...
These are the key words that illustrate why a balanced discussion is difficult.

Because on balance, neither is superior to the other in spite of my personal preference. For example the “more precise rubrics” can be a double-edged sword. They mean there are more opportunities to break rules, make mistakes and be negligent. If that weren’t the case, a 1935 Ceremonial that I own wouldn’t need two whole chapters on avoiding common mistakes about some arcane things such as resting the hands on the book and not the altar during the epistle.

As I’ve heard more than once from priests, the rubrics were so over the top that priests couldn’t really pray the Mass as they were so focused on avoiding mistakes. It is not for nothing that the overwhelming majority of bishops at the council voted for liturgical reform.

I like that the OF permits some choices. I regret that some see it as an invitation to be even more inventive than allowed but I think that’s more an issue of discipline than rubrics that would probably still exist if the E in EF stood for “Exclusive”.

On the other hand I think both forms could feed off the best features of each, but that is not at present possible in the EF as it’s missal is frozen in 1962.

For the OF I would focus on much better sacred music, such as plainchant propers in the vernacular and mandatory Latin and Greek for the Ordinary. But that’s just me. And I would focus on discipline as well, to remove improvisations such as they still exist. That would probably require some tightening of rubrics, but I hope nowhere near to the level of detail as in the EF.

So both have their strong and weak points.

Edit: Here is a suggestion for more balanced liturgical discussions, made in all charity. I think when you say “I am someone who embraces the Extraordinary Form. I think in many respects, it is superior to the Ordinary Form”, you raise red flags for many people, myself included. That gets our hackles up and to a discussion that rapidly spirals of control. Instead why not say “I prefer the EF because I like…”

The Church does not claim either form is superior and nor should we.
 
Last edited:
jesusalright4me said:
That is me too. I occasionally go to the OF when I have to. Much of the time, I am stopping myself from doing extra actions that were removed (e.g. the sign of the cross during the Sanctus, striking my breast thrice during the Agnus Dei, saying the “Lord I am not worthy” more than one time, etc.) I bet it is challenging for some priests who celebrate both forms to keep them separate.
Click to expand...
I don’t attend the Extraordinary Form as much as I like.

But when I’m at the Ordinary Form, I still perform the “extra actions.” When they were removed from the missal, I don’t think that meant they were no longer allowed for the lay faithful. I simply believe it means they were not longer required. So I do them.

When I was a kid, my Pastor tried to keep a lot of EF traditions though everything was in English. Almost everyone gave themselves the Sign of the Cross after the Penitential Act.

He used to use sprinkle Holy Water during all of Easter season and I think I used to remember him sometimes doing it during the processionals too.

He also chanted the whole mass and our parish sang & chanted a lot in English.

When I finally moved and attended my first Easter Sunday mass at another parish, I was disappointed by the lack of solemnity compared to his masses.
 
Last edited:
I think some people find the TLM unappealing because it’s unfamiliar. Especially for those who were encouraged to attend and had never done so before. This unfamiliarity is often times equated with being unedifying.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with saying one form is better than another. That doesn’t invalidate the other form and as many have already expressed on here, it’s often viewed as a personal preference anyway. The rub usually occurs when someone is asked why they prefer one over the other.

It seems like there are typically four common schools of thought in regards to the liturgical changes in the mass and how one views the OF & the TLM.

1). The changes were done with a specific motive that was not in keeping with authentic Catholic tradition. The results of which bared bad fruit, hence the OF, while valid, contains much of this bad fruit.

2). The changes, while questionable in their origin and application, were not done with bad intentions. They acknowledge that some prayers and practices should’ve been retained while also admitting some of the changes were needed, but see no reason why the OF should not be fully embraced and accepted in its entirety and origin.

3). The changes were in keeping with all the best aspects of Catholicism and VII and there is nothing questionable in its origin or its application. They view the OF as more preferable to the TLM and applaud the changes that have occurred following VII.

4). They view the changes as neither good nor bad, but simply defer to the wisdom of the Church and accept the OF as the normal and most widely practiced form and accept the TLM as the Extraordinary Form, but don’t seem concerned with nor bothered by anything that has transpired over the decades of liturgical change.
 
I can see why that would raise some red flags, because of the charged environment we live in. But I do think that it is not wrong to hold the view that one form is superior in some regards to the other. It is obvious, for example, that those who reformed the Roman Rite in the first place thought many aspects of the Extraordinary Form to be inferior to their idea of what the mass should look like. What I take issue with is the group think that I see going on on both sides that tends towards a view that one form is pristine and perfect in every respect. I disagree with this sentiment strongly.

To provide an analogy: whenever two theologians are debating on the doctrine of limbo, it is clear that both hold their view to be correct. The Church ultimately does not believe one view over the other, so they are free to hold their respective view and to debate about them, in all charity of course. And charity is precisely the thing that I see lacking from many discussions on this topic today. I think the best example of this sort of charity can be found in Aquinas’ Summa. Throughout the entire work, his views are always clear: he never backs down from them, but answers his objectors with prudence, charity, and respect. And very often, he argued for or against stuff that the Church at the time had no official position on (the Immaculate Conception is a great example).

In response to your other points: I can see what you are saying in regards to the complexity. Having studied the EF, however, I will add a few of my thoughts. Things that are initially complex become second nature to us human beings with much practice. Take for example driving a stick shift car (or really, driving in general for that matter). This endeavor still seems complex to me. And indeed it is! But whenever I ride with someone who drives such a car, I am amazed on how well they do so. It is clear that with much practice, driving such a vehicle became second nature.

I won’t deny the experience of the priests you mentioned, however, after having gone to many low masses and high masses in my life, I can say with confidence that I rarely see my pastor mess up on the complex rubrics (which I have looked into before). Externally, it seems as if he is running the show just fine, and I bet it is so internally for him as well.

I also think that the OF would do well to focus on better sacred music. I am glad to see that there is a movement towards reintroducing chanted propers and ordinaries.
 
I do like this too, in some respects at least. I am saddened, however, at some of the Scripture that was omitted from the OF, seemingly to avoid controversial issues.
 
CRV said:
Interesting articles on comparing the old and new lectionaries:-
Not Just More Scripture, But Different Scripture — Comparing the Old and New Lectionaries

Index Lectionum: A Comparative Table of Readings for the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Roman Rite

Comparing the New and Traditional Lectionaries

The Postconciliar Lectionary at 50: A Detailed Critique Peter Kwasniewski
Click to expand...
So far, I only read the first link and I’m honestly quite disturbed.

I’ve always thought it was weird that the Catholic lectionary sometimes omits verses, but I always thought (without researching it) that it was verses to call back to verses outside the reading (or stuff like that).

I also thought they had simply added readings. I had no idea that they actually removed a number of readings that were in the old lectionary. And never realized that verses were omitted to (seemingly) change the meaning of the Scripture reading.

Wow…
 
phil19034 said:
So far, I only read the first link and I’m honestly quite disturbed.

I’ve always thought it was weird that the Catholic lectionary sometimes omits verses, but I always thought (without researching it) that it was verses to call back to verses outside the reading (or stuff like that).

I also thought they had simply added readings. I had no idea that they actually removed a number of readings that were in the old lectionary. And never realized that verses were omitted to (seemingly) change the meaning of the Scripture reading.

Wow…
Click to expand...
I think it is good to know the differences. But keep in mind that the Church has approved the current lectionary. One can always just read the other passages to get “the fuller picture” for any particular reading.
 
jesusalright4me said:
Things that are initially complex become second nature to us human beings with much practice. Take for example driving a stick shift car (or really, driving in general for that matter). This endeavor still seems complex to me. And indeed it is! But whenever I ride with someone who drives such a car, I am amazed on how well they do so. It is clear that with much practice, driving such a vehicle became second nature.
Click to expand...
Well as it happens I drive a stick shift car. It’s actually a fairly simple skill, about on par with riding a bicycle.

I also flew airplanes and I think it’s a better analogy in the sense that the actual flying, that is controlling pitch, roll, yaw, speed and altitude, are fairly simple and after a couple of hundred hours become second nature like riding a bike. However, the rubrics of flying are very complex: that is the set of rules, procedures, emergency procedures etc., that ensure one gets from point A to B safely. Those little details can bite and are quickly forgotten when we let them get rusty. So to maintain our skills we needed refresher courses, periodic check rides, and practicing drills such as engine failure, simulated electrical failures, weather diversions at low altitude and the like.

Now in a Mass, forgetting a rubric won’t kill. But the point is that the more complex we make a task, the more repetition and training that is needed to maintain the skill set. And the priest who told me that the complexity level was too high was not a doddery old priest. He is an abbot of a monastery in the Solesmes Congregation, probably the most liturgically savvy of the Benedictine order. He is a prize-winning organist and harpsichordist. So he certainly knows about complex tasks, yet he still found the rubrics of the EF unnecessarily complicated, a distraction, and for the most part accretions added on over time. His opinion. And I’ve heard it from other priests, monastic and otherwise.

The OF is the Church’s official attempt to refresh the Mass. There have been some unexpected benefits. For example, at Trent, troped Kyries were banned, and with it a whole part of our Latin sacred music patrimony (here’s an example: Kyrie: Orbis Factor, medieval chant of the Gradual of Eleanor of Brittany (Lyric Video) - YouTube )

Now the new Missal allows a troped penitential rite again. (Now if only someone could adapt some beautiful chant to them…). I’m hoping I can convince our choirmaster to use Orbis Factor some day.

Lastly, all liturgy is designed by humans and is thus imperfect. As has been said we shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. In spite of being imperfect, that is not an obstacle to being beautiful. Both EF and OF can be if done with the required care.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top