Changes To The Ordinary Form of Mass?

[Dempsey1919]

Recently, I have read many posts on the forums about various changes to the Ordinary Form of the Mass under Pope Benedict XVI. One individual even claims that Pope Benedict may even promulgate a new Mass - Mass of Benedict XVI - a kind of hybrid that combines elements of the Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form of the Masses.

I know that there is a new English translation of the Mass that is closer to the official Latin texts. I haven’t read it, but I have heard that it more accurately conveys the meaning of the Latin without sounding old-fashioned or archaic. I am looking forward to this translation because the one we have now is very poor.

Other than this new translation, does anybody know of any further changes that could occur under Pope Benedict XVI? For example, is it possible that the Canon will always be said in Latin? And will the faithful be required to receive the Eucharist directly on the tongue while kneeling? I know the Pope prefers this in the Masses he celebrates.

As a traditional Catholic, I welcome these possible changes. However, what do non-traditional Catholics think about these possible changes to the Ordinary Form of the Mass?

 

[SenorHorace]

I seriously doubt that a new form of the Mass will be promulgated anytime soon - say the next several centuries for two reasons. First there is absolutely no reason for yet another Mass. We already have several Masses/Liturgies to choose from and the current OF of the Mass is neither problematic nor lacking.

Second it would cause too much turbulence if it was done despite the lack of need. The Ordinary Form of the Mass is now about 40 years old and things are just now beginning to settle down in the Church. Sometimes I think those hoping for a new Mass are secretly hoping for continued chaos.

I think Pope Benedict’s focus will be on facilitating the faithful in better understanding the Mass and getting the most they can out of it. We might also see possible “refinements” made official like the Pope’s preferred altar cross and candle arrangement. But a new Mass? No way, not for a very long time until a legitimate need arises.

 

[pnewton]

As a traditional Catholic, I welcome these possible changes. However, what do non-traditional Catholics think about these possible changes to the Ordinary Form of the Mass?

I do not consider myself non-traditional, but I would welcome any change the Holy Father deems appropriate. I know that he prefers the priest facing liturgical east. After reading his book, I think that it makes the best sense, but I would welcome it even if I did not agree.

 

[FrDavid96]

Interresting. The vocabulary employed here is most intriguing. The “Ordinary Form” or so-called Novus Ordo is the first time in 2000 years that the Church has ever had a “new Mass.” Revisions to the Mass over the centuries have been just that–revisions to the Mass, never before have we experienced a “new Mass.” In fact, Pope Benedict himself in Spirit of the Liturgy makes the point that we do not have a “new Mass.”

This is a matter of perceptions. Because the revisions were so prominent and the abuses have been so extreme, we perceive to have a “new Mass.” The fact that our experiences and our perceptions cause us to think of this as a “new Mass” is itself an expression of the challenges facing the Church in the last 40 years.

 

[SenorHorace]

All of this talk also quietly assumes that the OF Mass is somehow deficient. That real changes (and not mere refinements) and/or a new “hybrid Mass” is somehow warranted, that it would necessarily be a good thing? I personally find that to be ridiculous. In all reality I think some are projecting what they personally would like to see – needed or not.

I think if Pope Benedict does any real changing we might see him give the EF a little upgrade by bringing its Lectionary and calendar in line with the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

 

[Dempsey1919]

The vocabulary employed here is most intriguing. The “Ordinary Form” or so-called Novus Ordo is the first time in 2000 years that the Church has ever had a “new Mass.” Revisions to the Mass over the centuries have been just that–revisions to the Mass, never before have we experienced a “new Mass.” In fact, Pope Benedict himself in Spirit of the Liturgy makes the point that we do not have a “new Mass.”

In 1970, the Latin rite began celebrating the Mass of Paul VI. This liturgy, while retaining the most important and necessary elements of the Mass, was very different to the Tridentine Mass that had been used for fifteen centuries. For this reason, I think it is accurate to say that the Pauline Missal was indeed a new Mass.

The Mass of Paul VI represented a rupture in the history of the Roman rite. Before it’s promulgation, revisions of the Mass of Pius V occured occasionally when necessary. For example, Bl. John XXIII added the name of St. Joseph to the Canon in 1962. However, these changes were organic. They did not change the entire Mass. The Roman Mass changed gradually, through time, to meet the demands of the age. The same cannot be said about the Mass of Paul VI.

The Ordinary Form of the Mass was the invention of a liturgical committee. It was not an organic development of the existing Roman rite. In fact, the existing Roman rite was discarded, and a new Mass put into its place.

All of this talk also quietly assumes that the OF Mass is somehow deficient. That real changes (and not mere refinements) and/or a new “hybrid Mass” is somehow warranted, that it would necessarily be a good thing? I personally find that to be ridiculous. In all reality I think some are projecting what they personally would like to see – needed or not.

It’s not that the OF Mass is deficient. The OF is certainly valid and efficacious. However, if we look at the history of the Roman rite, I think it is fair to say that the Mass of Paul VI is radically different.

The OF represents a rupture in the development of the Roman rite. Its promulgation caused a liturgical chaos that is only just beginning to end. A comparison of the two Masses of the Roman rite will show that we have lost a lot. The Roman rite needs to re-descover its historical identity, and I hope to see changes to the OF Mass to reflect this. The changes to the OF Mass will enrich the entire rite because we will rediscover our distinct, and unique liturgical traditions. And this can only be a good thing.

 

[centurionguard]

Interresting. The vocabulary employed here is most intriguing. The “Ordinary Form” or so-called Novus Ordo is the first time in 2000 years that the Church has ever had a “new Mass.” Revisions to the Mass over the centuries have been just that–revisions to the Mass, never before have we experienced a “new Mass.” In fact, Pope Benedict himself in Spirit of the Liturgy makes the point that we do not have a “new Mass.”

This is a matter of perceptions. Because the revisions were so prominent and the abuses have been so extreme, we perceive to have a “new Mass.” The fact that our experiences and our perceptions cause us to think of this as a “new Mass” is itself an expression of the challenges facing the Church in the last 40 years.

I agree your sentiments Father. I would presume to say that the ((“Radical”)) changes that came about from Vatican II and in particular the Novus Ordo Mass have never been well received by many Catholics, otherwise there would (“not”) be so much disunity and liturgical abuses we see presently today. Forty-five years ago and actually it goes back many years before that “Revisionist” saw fit in their own self wisdom to change the Traditional Mass lauded for thousand’s of centuries. All a sudden Evolutionist or Revisionist who decide to change that long standing Traditional Mass into a completely New Mass to fit the norms of Modern Man. I think it will take centuries before reparations to the Novus Ordo Mass are made. Do I like the Novus Ordo Mass ? No I definitively do not. But I am goaded with humble respect to surrender to the Vicar of Christ here on earth.
I often wonder what Jesus thinks about the Novus Ordo Mass and how would God the Father prefer changes to our present day Mass with respect to His Beloved Son

 

[SenorHorace]

…The Ordinary Form of the Mass was the invention of a liturgical committee. It was not an organic development of the existing Roman rite. In fact, the existing Roman rite was discarded, and a new Mass put into its place.

While debatable, what does this have to do with this discussion? It might be germane if the OF was somehow deficient but it’s not. The OF was licitly prmulgated by the Church. That’s that. Everything you have noted here are non-issues in this context.

It’s not that the OF Mass is deficient. The OF is certainly valid and efficacious. However, if we look at the history of the Roman rite, I think it is fair to say that the Mass of Paul VI is radically different.

Within the scope of this discussion your comments would only be germane if the OF was deficient and it’s not. You may personally want the OF changed (and that’s neither here nor there) but there is no reason to do so from a theological, liturgical or historical standpoint. I would actually say now is the time not to mess with the OF so that it remains on it’s path to “full stability.”

The OF represents a rupture in the development of the Roman rite. Its promulgation caused a liturgical chaos that is only just beginning to end. A comparison of the two Masses of the Roman rite will show that we have lost a lot.

We haven’t lost a thing. What do you base that comparison on, word count? Your opinion is that we have lost a lot. The Church appears to think differently. Why don’t people such as yourself ever mention what we have gained? In the end your opinion or mine doesn’t matter. The Church’s does and She seems quite happy with the OF the way it is. You want something different? Go to the EF or one of the Eastern Catholic liturgies.

The Roman rite needs to re-descover its historical identity, and I hope to see changes to the OF Mass to reflect this. The changes to the OF Mass will enrich the entire rite because we will rediscover our distinct, and unique liturgical traditions. And this can only be a good thing.

Who are you to suggest the Roman Rite has lost its “historical identity?” It has not. We have lost no “liturgical traditions” with the current OF. Even if we did the Latin Rite has both a wonderful OF and a wonderful EF. All the bases are more than covered. If anything burnish the EF a bit by adopting the OF’s upgraded Lectionary cycle and calendar.

You want to see change. OK, fine. But your desire is based on *personal preference. * The items listed above are not only highly debatable, they would still be non-issues if they were indeed true. You mention “chaos.” Have you compared the Church’s last 40 years with the prior 1900 or so years? It often helps to look at difficult times in the context of history. Times (even liturgically) have been very rough before and they could well be again.

Have you also considered what the impact of major changes to the OF would do to the Church now that things are just beginning to settle down? While not as absurd as the notion of a “hybrid Mass”, it would still cause unnecessary instability. Pope Benedict is a very wise man who has shown concern for continued liturgical turbulence in his writings. Bet the ranch we won’t see major changes to the OF during his pontificate.

 

[pnewton]

It’s not that the OF Mass is deficient. The OF is certainly valid and efficacious. However, if we look at the history of the Roman rite, I think it is fair to say that the Mass of Paul VI is radically different.

I don’t consider that fair at all. When the word “radically” is used to modify the changes, this becomes an opinion that is in eye of the beholder.

 

[Canto]

In 1970, the Latin rite began celebrating the Mass of Paul VI. This liturgy, while retaining the most important and necessary elements of the Mass, was very different to the Tridentine Mass that had been used for fifteen centuries. For this reason, I think it is accurate to say that the Pauline Missal was indeed a new Mass.

The Mass of Paul VI represented a rupture in the history of the Roman rite. Before it’s promulgation, revisions of the Mass of Pius V occured occasionally when necessary. For example, Bl. John XXIII added the name of St. Joseph to the Canon in 1962. However, these changes were organic. They did not change the entire Mass. The Roman Mass changed gradually, through time, to meet the demands of the age. The same cannot be said about the Mass of Paul VI.

The Ordinary Form of the Mass was the invention of a liturgical committee. It was not an organic development of the existing Roman rite. In fact, the existing Roman rite was discarded, and a new Mass put into its place.

It’s not that the OF Mass is deficient. The OF is certainly valid and efficacious. However, if we look at the history of the Roman rite, I think it is fair to say that the Mass of Paul VI is radically different.

The OF represents a rupture in the development of the Roman rite.

The Catholic Encyclopaedia article on the Roman rite is illuminating for all those who think the OF is a break with tradition and not organic and discarded and ruptured etc, etc. One could say the at one stage the EF was a ‘new’ Mass using similar logic.

The Encyclopaedia noted how the canon was completely recast “which an unknown scholar composed.” “Why and when was the Roman **Liturgy changed **from what we see in Justin Martyr to that of Gregory I? The change is radical, especially as regards the most important element of the Mass, the Canon.”

“At Rome the Eucharistic prayer was fundamentally changed and recast at some uncertain period between the fourth and the sixth and seventh centuries. During the same time** the prayers of the faithful before the Offertory disappeared**, the kiss of peace was transferred to after the Consecration, and the** Epiklesis was omitted or mutilated into our “Supplices” prayer**… We must then admit that between the years 400 and 500 **a great transformation was made **in the Roman Canon."

“The “Missale Romanum Lateranense” of the eleventh century shows this **fused rite **complete as the only one in use at Rome.”

“From these and the sacramentaries we can reconstruct the Mass at Rome in the eighth or ninth century. There were as yet no preparatory prayers said before the altar. …the Communion under both kinds, during which the Communion psalm was sung…and the procession back to the sacristy.

It has been explained how this **(mixed) Roman Rite **gradually drove out the Gallican Use. By about the tenth or eleventh century the Roman Mass was practically the only one in use in the West…The Nicene Creed is an importation from Constantinople. It is said that in 1014 Emperor Henry II (1002-24) persuaded Pope Benedict VIII (1012-24) to add it after the Gospel (Berno of Reichenau, “De quibusdam rebus ad Missæ offic, pertin.”, ii), It had already been adopted in Spain, Gaul, and Germany.

All the present ritual and the prayers said by the celebrant at the Offertory were introduced from France about the thirteenth century; before that the secrets were the only Offertory prayers. There was **considerable variety **as to these prayers throughout the Middle Ages until the revised Missal of Pius V (1570).

The incensing of persons and things is again due to Gallican influence; It was not adopted at Rome till the eleventh or twelfth century. Before that time **incense was burned only during processions. **The three prayers said by the celebrant before his communion are private devotions introduced gradually into the official text.

Durandus mentions the first (for peace); the **Sarum Rite **had instead another prayer addressed to God the Father. Micrologus mentions only the second, but says that many other private prayers were said at this place (xviii). Here too there was **great diversity through the Middle Ages **till Pius V’s Missal. The latest additions to the Mass are its present beginning and end.

The psalm “Iudica me”, the Confession, and the other prayers said at the foot of the altar, are all part of the celebrant’s preparation, once said (with many other psalms and prayers) in the sacristy, as the “Præparatio ad Missam” in the Missal now is. There was great diversity as to this preparation till Pius V established our modern rule of saying so much only before the altar. In the same way all that follows the “Ite missa est” is an afterthought, part of the thanksgiving, not formally admitted till Pius V.”

newadvent.org/cathen/09790b.htm

 

[Dauphin]

The Catholic Encyclopaedia article on the Roman rite is illuminating for all those who think the OF is a break with tradition and not organic and discarded and ruptured etc, etc. One could say the at one stage the EF was a ‘new’ Mass using similar logic.

The Encyclopaedia noted how the canon was completely recast “which an unknown scholar composed.” “Why and when was the Roman **Liturgy changed **from what we see in Justin Martyr to that of Gregory I? The change is radical, especially as regards the most important element of the Mass, the Canon.”

“At Rome the Eucharistic prayer was fundamentally changed and recast at some uncertain period between the fourth and the sixth and seventh centuries. During the same time** the prayers of the faithful before the Offertory disappeared**, the kiss of peace was transferred to after the Consecration, and the** Epiklesis was omitted or mutilated into our “Supplices” prayer**… We must then admit that between the years 400 and 500 **a great transformation was made **in the Roman Canon."

“The “Missale Romanum Lateranense” of the eleventh century shows this **fused rite **complete as the only one in use at Rome.”

“From these and the sacramentaries we can reconstruct the Mass at Rome in the eighth or ninth century. There were as yet no preparatory prayers said before the altar. …the Communion under both kinds, during which the Communion psalm was sung…and the procession back to the sacristy.

It has been explained how this **(mixed) Roman Rite **gradually drove out the Gallican Use. By about the tenth or eleventh century the Roman Mass was practically the only one in use in the West…The Nicene Creed is an importation from Constantinople. It is said that in 1014 Emperor Henry II (1002-24) persuaded Pope Benedict VIII (1012-24) to add it after the Gospel (Berno of Reichenau, “De quibusdam rebus ad Missæ offic, pertin.”, ii), It had already been adopted in Spain, Gaul, and Germany.

All the present ritual and the prayers said by the celebrant at the Offertory were introduced from France about the thirteenth century; before that the secrets were the only Offertory prayers. There was **considerable variety **as to these prayers throughout the Middle Ages until the revised Missal of Pius V (1570).

The incensing of persons and things is again due to Gallican influence; It was not adopted at Rome till the eleventh or twelfth century. Before that time **incense was burned only during processions. **The three prayers said by the celebrant before his communion are private devotions introduced gradually into the official text.

Durandus mentions the first (for peace); the **Sarum Rite **had instead another prayer addressed to God the Father. Micrologus mentions only the second, but says that many other private prayers were said at this place (xviii). Here too there was **great diversity through the Middle Ages **till Pius V’s Missal. The latest additions to the Mass are its present beginning and end.

The psalm “Iudica me”, the Confession, and the other prayers said at the foot of the altar, are all part of the celebrant’s preparation, once said (with many other psalms and prayers) in the sacristy, as the “Præparatio ad Missam” in the Missal now is. There was great diversity as to this preparation till Pius V established our modern rule of saying so much only before the altar. In the same way all that follows the “Ite missa est” is an afterthought, part of the thanksgiving, not formally admitted till Pius V.”

newadvent.org/cathen/09790b.htm

You’re describing gradual accretions - an organic development beginning with the foundations of the Roman Rite. At no point in the history of the Church was a committee given the power to construct and entirely new Mass which severed the Roman Rite from its roots and brought in unprecedented options and ambiguous prayers which allow for immense variation in the lex orandi.

The Pauline Mass is in desperate need of fundamental reform, to bring it into continuity with the Church’s historical liturgy. This is why the Vatican is right now studying the possibility of suppressing Eucharistic prayers 2 and 4, rendering the Canon in Latin, and allowing the magnificent traditional offertory to be used (to replace the extraordinarily ambiguous modern offertory).

 

[Canto]

You’re describing gradual accretions

an unknowing scholar completly recasting the most important part of the Mass doesn’t fall into this category?

Pinching bits from other rites (which the OF is sometimes accused of) doesn’t either?

What about complety adding prayers 12 centuries after Christ’s passion?

ambiguous prayers

For example?

ambiguous modern offertory

What exactly is ambiguous about it? It prayerfully, succinctly and scripturally gets to the point and clearly says sacrifice.

OF Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation,
for through your goodness we have received
the bread we offer you:
fruit of the earth and work of human hands,
it will become for us **the bread of life.
Blessed be God forever.

EF Accept, O Holy Father, Almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, your unworthy servant, offer to You, note consecration has yet to take place] my living and true God, on behalf of my countless sins, and offenses, and negligences; on behalf of all here present and likewise for all faithful Christians living and dead, that it may profit me and them as a means of salvation to life everlasting.

OF By the mystery of this water and wine
**may we come to share in the divinity of Christ
who humbled himself to share in our humanity.

EF O God, who established the nature of man in wondrous dignity, and still more admirably restored it, grant that by the mystery of this water and wine, may we come to share in His Divinity, who humbled himself to share in our humanity, Jesus Christ, Your Son, our Lord. who lives and reigns with You in the unity of the holy Spirit, one God, forever and ever. Amen.

OF Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation,
for through your goodness we have received
the wine we offer you:
fruit of the vine and work of human hands
it will become our spiritual drink.
Blessed be God for ever.

EF We offer You, O Lord, the chalice of salvation, humbly begging of Your mercy that it may arise before Your divine Majesty, with a pleasing fragrance, for our salvation and for that of the whole world. Amen

OF With humble spirit and contrite heart
may we be accepted by you, O Lord,
and may our sacrifice** in your sight this day
be pleasing to you, Lord God.

EF In humble spirit and contrite heart
may we be accepted by you, O Lord,
and may our sacrifice in your sight this day
be pleasing to you, Lord God.

Fr. Adrian Fortescue in “Liturgy of the Mass” noted the addition of these prayers to the Tridentine liturgy was a very late, Catholic Ency says 12th Century.**

 

[centurionguard]

I don’t consider that fair at all. When the word “radically” is used to modify the changes, this becomes an opinion that is in eye of the beholder.

Maybe you could explain how is it that YOU cannot see how the Novus Ordo Mass is ((“Radically”)) different from the Traditional Mass ?

 

[pnewton]

Maybe you could explain how is it that YOU cannot see how the Novus Ordo Mass is ((“Radically”)) different from the Traditional Mass ?

Surely you are not asking me to prove a negative. The answer I could give would be to refer you to The Spirit of the Liturgy that Cardinal Ratzinger wrote. Perhaps I could show you all the side to side comparisons here that have been posted from time to time.

One can not have a side to side, point by point. comparison on two radically different liturgies. All the basics and the structure is still pretty much the same.

I explained the negative you asked. Please don’t ask me to argue my opinion, or any other logically impossible feat.

 

[Canto]

Maybe you could explain how is it that YOU cannot see how the Novus Ordo Mass is ((“Radically”)) different from the Traditional Mass ?

Mass of the Catechumens

The OF begins with in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
Removes Psalm 42 added 12th century
Confìteor… (traditionally prayers were in the plural)
Have mercy on us…
Kyrie
A prayer
Scripture readings
Cleanse my heart and my lips…
Through the words of the gospel may our sins be wiped away…
Homily
Credo
Prayer of the faithful restored
Offertory prayers
Removes incense prayer – added c. 11th century
Secret c.f. prayer over the offerings
Sanctus
Eucharistic prayer - featuring Saints, prayers for dead (purgatory inherent), sacrifice etc
Communion rite
Pater Noster
Sign/Kiss of peace
Agnus Dei
Receiving of communion
Prayer after communion
Dismissal
4th gospel replaced by extra reading

Doesn’t seem radical to me, though I wish we had more chant - but that was falling out long before Vatican II.

 

[japhy]

The word “radical” comes from the Latin radix which means “root”. A “radical” change is a change that effects (or takes place at) the root. What is the root of the liturgy? The Catholic faith. How is that faith manifested? Just to name a few ways: language, gestures, and postures.

Language
The very language of many prayers (I’m referring primarily to the propers like the Collect, Offertory, and Post-Communion) has been changed, even in the Latin. (Fr. John Zuhlsdorf’s series “What does the prayer really say?” draws out these differences.) The prayers on All Soul’s Day, for example, have had the very word anima (“soul”) stripped from them. Praying for the souls of the dead is almost entirely de-emphasized altogether in the Ordinary Form. (The Collect of the first Mass on All Soul’s Day is a prayer for us, instead of for the deceased!)

Other prayers have likewise been “sanitized” and reduced, such as the prayer over the water on the Easter Vigil: not only have several Scriptural references been removed, but the waters of the flood are no longer described as having “washed away the crimes of the guilty world”.

Gestures
The gestures of the Mass have been reduced. Some of that is understandable. But a lot of repetition was simplified (or just removed) without taking into account the symbolism of the repetition. (Luckily, the Kyrie survived.) Not only have gestures been reduced, but many priests don’t seem to know about the gestures that still remain, and few take the time to teach their flocks. The gestures seem to be hidden from sight and knowledge. Who knows to make a profound bow during the Creed, or to make a genuflection on March 25 and December 25? (Who knows why?) How many priests (or faithful) actually make a bow of the head as a sign of reverence to the name of Jesus?

Postures
The postures of the Mass are now “up for grabs”, it seems. Standing during the Eucharistic Prayer is uncharacteristic in the Roman Rite, but some bishops and priests have churches built without kneelers: no kneelers, no kneeling. The posture of the priest during the Our Father might also be inconsistent: the priest uses the Orans for presidential prayers (said on behalf of the people) such as the Collect, Offertory, and Post-Communion… so why is he still using it for the Our Father which we all say aloud? No longer is the Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle to be reverenced (by a genuflection or bow or anything) when it is passed, during the Mass.

Other Ways
There are other ways to covertly reorient the Catholic faith:

• The introduction of a “Memorial Acclamation” has led to the confusion (especially in English-speaking countries) that the acclamation is the “mystery of faith”, whereas the mysterium fidei to which attention is being drawn is the transubstantiation on the altar (and, historically, that of the Precious Blood in particular).
• The unification of the prayers and actions of the priest and the prayers of the people (a single Penitential Rite, a single Communion rite) blur the distinction between the ordained priesthood and the baptismal priesthood: they differ not only by degree but also in essence.
• Blessings are primarily directed to persons rather than things. The prayer over an icon, for example, asks for those who make use of the icon to be blessed (which is the expected end result) rather than the icon itself to be blessed.
• The ablutions after Communion can be delayed which gives it the appearance, I would argue, of “washing the dishes” rather than taking care to consume the remains of the Sacrament with reverence.

Conclusion
Am I saying that the Ordinary Form isn’t a Catholic Mass, or that it’s invalid somehow? No. But I do feel the Ordinary Form has flaws introduced into it (rather than flaws in the Extraordinary Form which have accreted over time) which require explanation and, if left unheeded, can result in a re-orientation of the faith. It has copied, generally speaking, the form of the Extraordinary Form; it has made structural changes, but those which are undetectable at a distance are changes of language (especially in the propers).

As far as removing historical “accretions” (distinct from aforementioned flaws), when do you determine what year to stop at? Pope Pius XII warned against such antiquarianism in Mediator Dei. The Roman Rite has organically developed over the centuries. Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in Milestones that following Vatican II, “the old building was demolished, and another was built, to be sure largely using materials from the previous one and even using the old building plans” (see context here).

 

[pnewton]

The word “radical” comes from the Latin radix which means “root”. A “radical” change is a change that effects (or takes place at) the root. What is the root of the liturgy? The Catholic faith.

This is why I do not see radical change. The Catholic faith is much more that its manifestation described here. It is the Holy Eucharist that is the source and summit of our faith. This most important of things has not changed.

 

[japhy]

This is why I do not see radical change. The Catholic faith is much more that its manifestation described here. It is the Holy Eucharist that is the source and summit of our faith. This most important of things has not changed.

I agree that the Ordinary Form celebrated by the book does not display a different faith in the Eucharist (even without the genuflections and signs of the cross, etc.). The emphasis is re-ordered, however, in the language of certain prayers.

Let me use an example from Fr. Z’s series. The prayer in question is from the Ordinary Form, the Post-Communion prayer for the Friday in the 1st Week of Lent.
Friday – 1st Week of Lent

This prayer was more or less the Postcommunio on the 1st Sunday in Lent in the 1962MR. Changes were made. It is an ancient prayer, however, to be found in various manuscripts of the Gelasian and Gregorian sacramentaries. The ancient form, however, has libatio for refectio, as does the 1962MR.

POST COMMUNIONEM
Tui nos, Domine, sacramenti refectio sancta restauret,
et, a vetustate purgatos,
in mysterii salutaris faciat transire consortium.

We have seen refectio before, from reficio. The more ancient prayer had libatio, which is “a drink-offering, libation”. This is found in the Vulgate in the Old Testament in Num 28:24. Think of Genesis 35 when Jacob poured a drink offering on the pillar he set up. A libation offering was common to all ancient cultures.

In Isaiah 53 the “Suffering Servant” pours out his life as a sacrifice.

I think the cutter/snipper experts of the Consilium decided that libatio was not merely too “pagan” in sound, but also too sacrificial. They chose refectio, an “eating, refeshment”. They chose a “filling” rather than an “emptying”.

The older libatio helps us make better sense of the purgatos which follows.

 

[Dauphin]

an unknowing scholar completly recasting the most important part of the Mass doesn’t fall into this category?

No, because that’s the genesis of the Roman Rite.

Pinching bits from other rites (which the OF is sometimes accused of) doesn’t either?

If the praying community of Church gradually and organically incorporates elements which have developed in parallel rites into the Roman Rite, that’s perfectly fine. The key is that it wasn’t an artificial process. The liturgy has been shaped, always in continuity with its past, by the experience of God’s people.

What about complety adding prayers 12 centuries after Christ’s passion?

I don’t know anyone who opposes that as a matter of principle. If there’s some genuine benefit and it’s consonant with the spirit of the liturgy, the gradual incorporation of new prayers can be a wonderful benefit.

The liturgy of the Church is alive. It’s not meant to remain stagnant for centuries. However, imposing an artificial process to “construct” a new Mass is not at all what’s meant by “organic development”.

For example?

Along with the offertory, Eucharistic Prayer 2, especially when it’s used almost exclusively, is destructive to the lex orandi. The appalling English translations in use today also generally obliterate the great theological depth contained in the propers.

What exactly is ambiguous about it?

If you can’t see the dramatic differences in what you’ve posted, I can’t help you. If you can’t see the clear doctrinal exposition in the Traditional Latin Mass of a propitiatory sacrifice offered for the remission of the sins of the living and the dead, and contrast that with the “spiritual food” of the Pauline Mass, then I can’t help you.

 

[japhy]

an unknowing scholar completly recasting the most important part of the Mass doesn’t fall into this category?

The Roman Canon was substantially in existence by the fourth century (as it is quoted extensively in St. Ambrose’s De Sacramentis). The so-called Hippolytan canon shows little evidence of actual use, especially since the “Apostolic Tradition” says: “It is not at all necessary that he prays with the very same words given above, as though by an effort of memory giving thanks to God. Each shall pray whatever is according to his ability. If someone has the ability to pray a lengthy and solemn prayer, that is well. If someone else, in praying, offers a short prayer, this is not to be prevented. That prayer must only be correct in orthodoxy.” (9:4-5). Furthermore, that Eucharistic Prayer was meant for use by a bishop at the liturgy during which he is ordained to the episcopate. (cf. 4:1)

What about complety adding prayers 12 centuries after Christ’s passion?

What about inventing new Eucharistic Prayers in the 1960’s (and beyond) to effectively give the one Roman Rite 13 Eucharistic Prayers in the place of a single Canon? That is quite an innovation to the Roman Rite.

EF Accept, O Holy Father, Almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, your unworthy servant, offer to You, note consecration has yet to take place] my living and true God, on behalf of my countless sins, and offenses, and negligences; on behalf of all here present and likewise for all faithful Christians living and dead, that it may profit me and them as a means of salvation to life everlasting.

The E.F. uses anticipatory language in the offertory prayers. I admit there is a potential for confusion if the priest or people do not understand the use and effect of anticipatory language. (Catechesis solves many problems.)