Balance in liturgical discussions

  • Thread starter Thread starter jesusalright4me
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You make a good point regarding the complexities that govern a priest’s role during the mass. I think some changes to simplify these aspects could’ve been made. However, the changes that were implemented, I believe, went overboard.

When people say they prefer the TLM, it isn’t because the priest is touching the book or the altar in accordance with the rubrics. I feel it’s because of what the TLM has come to symbolize and because of the reverence that so many are longing for.

Right or wrong, the TLM has come to represent a time before so much within the Church was changed and/or diminished. It’s a time before the use of the NAB, before communion in the hand, lay Eucharistic ministers, standing vs kneeling, the removal of High Altars in favor of tables, watered down catechesis, ecumenical compromises, so on and so forth.
 
I do appreciate the analogy. I also must say, that it is a shame we lost the troped Kyries. I think it is just as much of a shame as losing the 9-fold Kyrie.
 
jesusalright4me said:
I think it is just as much of a shame as losing the 9-fold Kyrie.
Click to expand...
We didn’t. Even in the OF liturgy, the 9-fold remains for certain settings:

Kyrie I A (Sundays of Easter season)
Kyrie I B (feasts and memorials of Easter season)
Kyrie III
Kyrie VI
Kyrie IX (Feasts and solemnities of the BVM)
Kyrie X (Feasts and memorials of the BVM)
Kyrie XV
Kyrie I*
Kyrie II*
Kyrie IV*

All can be licitly used in the OF and are in the 1974 Graduale Romanum.
 
Last edited:
I go to the EF as well as the OF.
I think it is fine to have a preference for one over the other.
However if you begin saying the OF is somehow inferior you are going into somewhat muddy grounds.
Look anyone would admit the EF is beautiful and has a long history in the Church. Although it was officially propagated in 1570 following the Council of Trent, it goes back in its basic form to around the year 600 with Gregory the Great.
Thosands and thousands of saints were made through it and the Church will never have anything but the upmost respect for it. It is why Pope Emeritus Benedict XVl said the form is known as the Extraordinary Form and basically that the Church was wrong to ever make it seem as if it was somehow dangerous following the OF release in 1970.
The problem I think with saying the OF is defective in itself to the EF is because you are making an assumption by yourself, which ironically is modernism itself( traditionalists always speak out against modernism but just thinking you know better than the Church in what it says or liturgical reforms is modernism in it’s own sense). It is saying that the Church was not led by the Holy Spirit in that case.
I’m not going to get into all of the arguments about the conspiracies we have all heard about Communists and Freemasons etc. It isn’t worth the time.
And another thing, many prayers were actually taken out of the EF Missal through time by Pope Saint Pius X, Pius Xll, and Pope Saint John Xlll also removed say the second confiteor and simplified the EF missal. It isn’t like the missal of 1962 was the same as 1570. And it changed somewhat drastically in the late 19th and early 20th century before Pius Xll restored many things such as the Easter Vigil being said in the evening and also reducing the Pentecost vigil from 12 readings to 4 I believe.
The missal has always been changing. Even the Last Gospel was originally a private thing the priest did after mass but later was added to the missal as part of mass. The Leonine Prayers ( though never in the missal itself) were introduced by Pope Leo Xlll, and Pius X added the three Sacred Hearts at the end.
In many ways a lot of the prayers in the EF( and I love them!), but were added through time.
Really what the reform of the liturgy did was further what some popes did in the past decades.
I’m not one for a reform of the reform. I wish the EF was more available than it is but I am content with how it is now with having two forms of the same rite.
 
Last edited:
Yes I believe reverence is the issue here.
If the priests followed the GIRM and stopped improvising a lot would be better. I admit that.
 
Right, but that is the thing, it is only an option. The shear amount of options available in the OF I contend fosters a sense of disunity in Western Catholic worship.

Not to mention, a good deal of symbolic explanations had developed to explain the 9-fold Kyrie.
 
But see, I think the EF is defective in itself in some regards. Particularly, its lack of an ability to have some parts celebrated in the vernacular. And as OraLabora stated earlier, the troped Kyries was a major loss at the Council of Trent.

Also, the promulgation of a liturgy is not necessarily always going to be infallibly a good thing. Men are put in charge of it, and they can slip up. The Holy Spirit will, of course, only lead us into that which is good. A good example may be the prayers for the Jews. Some more traditionalist Catholics argue that these are good things, whereas many other Catholics would say that they contain taints of anti-antisemitism and are therefore a bad thing. But if you take the latter position, how would you respond to a traditionalist stating “if you deny these prayers, you are denying the work of the Holy Spirit in the liturgy”?
 
Last edited:
Well the OF was never supposed to be completely in the vernacular either if you read the GIRM. Most of the unchanging parts of mass were supposed to be said in Latin.
The EF doesn’t need the vernacular, it was tried in the late 60s what some people call a 65 missal which was known as the normative mass.
It just wasnt well received because many of the rubrics make it awkward with people chanting in certain places, like the Offertory Verse etc.
However it can be used but I think that defeats the point of going to the EF really. As long as the epistle and gospel are read or reread in the vernacular for the kids I’m happy.
As for me I actually get more out of mass when I read a long with it anyways. The vernacular I tend to space out thus I even read along in that case. So it just doesn’t matter to me.
 
Last edited:
As for the prayer for the Jews, Pope Benedict XVl actually updated it for the EF. Not sure groups like the SSPX would use it but diocese and religious like FSSP would.
It has been changed many times itself.
Prior to 1955 it said
Let us pray also for the faithless Jews that Almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts; so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord.
Almighty and eternal God, who dost not exclude from thy mercy even Jewish faithlessness: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of thy Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen.
In 1955 Pius Xll changed it too
Let us pray also for the faithless Jews: that almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts; so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord. Almighty and eternal God, who dost not exclude from thy mercy even Jewish faithlessness: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of thy Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen.
In 1959 John Xlll changed it too
Let us pray also for the Jews: that almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts; so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord. Let us pray. Let us kneel. Arise. Almighty and eternal God, who dost also not exclude from thy mercy the Jews: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of thy Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen.
Pope Benedict XVl changed it too
Let us also pray for the Jews: That our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men.Almighty and eternal God, who want that all men be saved and come to the recognition of the truth, propitiously grant that even as the fullness of the peoples enters Thy Church, all Israel be saved. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.

Some however from Jewish groups don’t understand why Benedict XVl didnt just use the one in the OF though which is
Let us pray also for the Jewish people, to whom the Lord our God spoke first, that he may grant them to advance in love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant. Almighty ever-living God, who bestowed your promises on Abraham and his descendants, hear graciously the prayers of your Church, that the people you first made your own may attain the fullness of redemption. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
 
Last edited:
jesusalright4me said:
Right, but that is the thing, it is only an option.
Click to expand...
Actually they aren’t options if you follow the rubrics of the Graduale Romanum (although it is permissible to use simpler settings for less experienced choirs). For example, Sundays, memorials and feasts of Easter Season always call for a 9-fold Kyrie, as do memorials, feasts and solemnities of the BVM.

It’s more proper to say that they are used not optionally, but in a graduated level of solemnity according to the occasion. Which is consistent with the principle of more solemn uses on more solemn occasions. Personally, I think a 9-fold Kyrie is overkill on an ordinary weekday Mass; however last Wednesday, memorial of St. Boniface, the Easter season 9-fold Kyrie was used at the abbey.

I also think it is overkill if we are going to encourage more chant in the OF. We risk overwhelming novice singers, and if we get more chant, most singers will be novices.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top