Changes To The Ordinary Form of Mass?

[jkpreece]

I think what the OF is supposed to be is incredible, however, almost no one does it!
It is preferable for the priest to face the Alter. Most of the Mass should remain in Latin and there should be some silence. There are way too many abuses happening today, but what the OF is supposed to be is good.
As for partaking on the tongue and kneeling. I hope that comes soon. Hardly anyone recognizes the Eucharist anymore. Maybe it will make people think about why they are kneeling. Most people don’t even give a full bow, they just nod their heads.
Also, taking on the tongue will prevent any Eucharistic abuses by lay people. This is becoming quite common Besides, taking in the hand started as a DISOBEDIENT movement! Why was it allowed?
Outside of all of this, the Tabrinacle should not be taken from behind the Alter and placed out in left field somewhere. That was never allowed.
I guess that’s the end of my rant

 

[Mark77]

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.

Exactly!

Discussion is great and we may have a personal preference if we are given several options, but if we claim that the Church has given us something that is invalid and not the will of Jesus, then we reject the will of our Lord Himself.

Jesus told us; "And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after supper, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.” Lk 22:19-20

“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Mt 16:18-19

If we believe these things, then arguing over wording or forms, etc. is going against the will of Jesus himself.

No one should tolerate Liturgical abuses, but to question the validity of the forms given to us by the Church is like saying I’m Catholic but I only believe some of the teachings of the Church. Sounds like there are billions of Popes out there, not only “One Successor to St. Peter”.

These are the same doubts and arguments that led to the “Reformation” and the 20,000+ protestant denominations who are now diluting and often corrupting the fullness of Truth that Jesus gave us.

Remember, the Devil’s favorite tactic is “divide and conquer”.

Jesus I Trust in You!

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

Mark

 

[SenorHorace]

There is no legitimate reason to replace or even radically change the OF Mass. More specifically there is hasn’t been one offered on this thread. While the need could possibly arise down the road, it’s going to be a long time. My guess it’ll be a time span measured in centuries.

The great need now is to continue to let the Mass “settle-in” (it’s only been about 40 years) and to greatly increase the quality and quantity of catechesis. To replace or even radically change the OF Mass today would be seemingly very irresponsible.

 

[SenorHorace]

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 100%

I’ll also add that I love both the OF and the EF. Both are tremendous gifts from God.

 

[Timothysis]

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.

And what do we make of the fact that all you see in the Pauline Mass is the consecration of “spiritual food?”

*Father, you are holy indeed, and all creation rightly gives you praise. All life, all holiness comes from you through your Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, by the working of the Holy Spirit. From age to age you gather a people to yourself, so that from east to west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your name.
And so, Father, we bring you these gifts. We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit, that they may become the body and blood of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at whose command we celebrate this eucharist. *
*
Father, calling to mind the death your Son endured for our salvation, his glorious resurrection and ascension into heaven, and ready to greet him when he comes again, we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice. Look with favor on your Church’s offering, and see the Victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself. Grant that we, who are nourished by his body and blood, may be filled with his Holy Spirit, and become one body, one spirit in Christ. May be make us an everlasting gift to you and enable us to share in the inheritance of your saints, with Mary, the virgin Mother of God, with the apostles, the martyrs, and all your saints, on whose constant intercession we rely for help.

Lord, may this sacrifice, which has made our peace with you, advance the peace and salvation of all the world.*

Really, this constant denigration of the Mass, whether it is celebrated by the Tridentine missal or the missal of Pope Paul VI is certainly beneath anyone who claims to be a “good” catholic. To turn one’s nose up at the Pauline Mass is to turn one’s nose up at Christ Himself.

 

[SenorHorace]

…Really, this constant denigration of the Mass, whether it is celebrated by the Tridentine missal or the missal of Pope Paul VI is certainly beneath anyone who claims to be a “good” catholic. To turn one’s nose up at the Pauline Mass is to turn one’s nose up at Christ Himself.

When one really stops to think, it is astounding that any Catholic would feel they are somehow qualified to not only critique the Mass (any form), but to critique the manner in which it was developed and promulgated.

Sure we can say I prefer the XYZ Mass for these reasons. Nothing wrong with that so long as it’s qualified as a personal opinion and not as something intrinsically wrong with the Mass or something that will “help” the Church.

 

[BSHoop96]

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.

What I think we are likely to see is the correction of things in the NO Mass that were never intended and were done “in the spirit of Vatican II”.

 

[SenorHorace]

Two other things also come to mind.

The way in which the OF Mass is celebrated in most places definitely seems to be settling down quite a bit. I think in general the rubrics of the OF Mass are being more closely followed by more and more celebrants under this pontificate. I think it’s continuing to improve too and Pope Benedict’s support of the OF is certainly helping matters.

I think in a certain odd way, these positive developments bother some who wanted to see the OF scrapped altogether. I think at some level they realize the OF is here to stay for a very long time (without major changes) and that bothers them.

I also think the motu proprio for the EF has had two unintended consequences. First, in my experience many people who spent years politicking for a local EF no longer have a “cause” now that we have one. Most don’t attend it either and they are quiet about it because they can’t complain as it’s celebrated very reverently in a central parish.

I think it’s also becoming quite clear that the EF will never be a contender in most places with the OF in terms of Mass attendance. Its attendance may be growing (as a % of those who attend the EF) but it’s certainly not gaining on the OF. I think that growing realization has had an impact on some people.

 

[SenorHorace]

What I think we are likely to see is the correction of things in the OF Mass that were never intended and were done “in the spirit of Vatican II”.

That wouldn’t require a “correction” of the rubrics. It would simply require following what’s already in the Roman Missal.

 

[BSHoop96]

That wouldn’t require a “correction” of the rubrics. It would simply require following what’s already in the Roman Missal.

I guess I wasn’t very clear. I didn’t mean a correction of the rubrics. I’ll try again.

I think we are likely to see the Mass being done as it was intended before people took off and ran with it in the “spirit of Vatican II”.

 

[japhy]

It is astounding that any Catholic would feel they are somehow qualified to not only critique the Mass (any form), but to critique the manner in which it was developed and promulgated. … Nothing wrong with that so long as it’s qualified as a personal opinion and not as something intrinsically wrong with the Mass or something that will “help” the Church.

Are you astounded at my critique a few posts back? Or at Cardinal Ratzinger’s critique of the manner in which the Ordinary Form was developed? That some measly Catholic might have something to say about the liturgy that would “help” the Church?

Are you equally astounded at the committee (the Consilium) whose job it was to implement the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy and produced the Ordinary Form? In their estimation, they were fixing things that were wrong with the Mass (things “out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or … unsuited to it”, things that “came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage”). They believed they were helping the Church be drawing up a new liturgy, although in doing so they failed to actually uphold (and implement) certain parts of the Constitution. Pope Paul VI admitted as much (in diplomatic language) in the weeks before the new Missal came into use: he lamented the inevitable loss of Latin and Gregorian chant, which is odd considering the Constitution explicitly called for their retention.

 

[SenorHorace]

Are you astounded at my critique a few posts back? Or at Cardinal Ratzinger’s critique of the manner in which the Ordinary Form was developed? That some measly Catholic might have something to say about the liturgy that would “help” the Church?

I’m astounded that you would think you have some sort of insight that would “help” the Church in this area.

Are you equally astounded at the committee (the Consilium) whose job it was to implement the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy and produced the Ordinary Form? In their estimation, they were fixing things that were wrong with the Mass (things “out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or … unsuited to it”, things that “came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage”).

That committee was the Church for all intents and purposes and I follow the Church.

They believed they were helping the Church be drawing up a new liturgy, although in doing so they failed to actually uphold (and implement) certain parts of the Constitution.

So you say. And the Church did not address this and fix the problems?

Pope Paul VI admitted as much (in diplomatic language) in the weeks before the new Missal came into use: he lamented the inevitable loss of Latin and Gregorian chant, which is odd considering the Constitution explicitly called for their retention.

No he did not. And so you know, the use of Latin and G-chant are both welcomed in the OF.

 

[SenorHorace]

I guess I wasn’t very clear. I didn’t mean a correction of the rubrics. I’ll try again.

I think we are likely to see the Mass being done as it was intended before people took off and ran with it in the “spirit of Vatican II”.

Agreed!

 

[japhy]

I’m astounded that you would think you have some sort of insight that would “help” the Church in this area.

It’s not necessarily my insight. I learned about the lack of anima in the Ordinary Form’s prayers on All Souls Day from someone else; upon investigation, it turned out true. I learned about the change in language of many of the propers from Fr. Z; I take him at his word.

If I were a liturgical scholar, would that make a difference? If so, I urge you to consider the writings of Msgr. Klaus Gamber, Dom Alcuin Reid, and Fr. Aidan Nichols… not to mention Cardinal Ratzinger. His words in Milestones (linked to previously) were eye-opening for me.

That committee was the Church for all intents and purposes and I follow the Church.

There have been ludicrous (and eventually rescinded!) liturgical reforms carried out by “the Church” in history. Three popes in particular were Leo X, Clement VII, and Urban VIII. The reforms to breviary hymns of Pope Urban VIII were not reversed until after Vatican II.

The history of interaction between the Consilium and the Curia is not a pretty one. The Consilium was not “the Church”, but needed its decisions ratified. Many of their decisions were ratified despite not adhering to the principles laid down in Sacrosanctum Concilium.

So you say. And the Church did not address this and fix the problems?

Given the amount of time it’s taken to show Catholics that ad orientem, Latin, and chant are permitted in the Ordinary Form, I would say the Church did not address the problems very quickly. The Church is addressing some of them, thanks be to God.

One glaring disconnect between the Constitution on the liturgy and present practice is the widespread Communion under both kinds (especially in the US).

No he did not. And so you know, the use of Latin and G-chant are both welcomed in the OF.

Pope Paul VI, November 26, 1969: “It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant.”

In practice, Latin is not just not the principal language… it’s missing and considered illegal by many. Chant likewise. We would not have lost a great amount of Gregorian Chant if Latin had been retained at least for the ordinary parts of the Mass.

And so you know, the use of Latin and G-chant are both welcomed in the OF.

I know that. You know that. Far too many bishops and priests don’t (and consequently, an overwhelming number of the faithful). Some are soundly opposed to Latin.

 

[peregrinus_sg]

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.

Perhaps I’m not understanding you correctly, but the new English translation of the Ordinary Form of the Mass will be promulgated in about 2 years (yeah, I know, people have been saying ‘2 more years’ since 6 years ago.) The Australian Bishops’ Conference have already completed approving the entire new translation of the Roman Missal and will be submitting to Rome for the recognitio later this year after the Australian proper Masses are added. The Bishops Conference of England and Wales will complete approving the entire Roman Missal this Easter. While the US Bishops had wanted to tardy along, Rome had ordered the US Bishops to speed things up (Thank God for Rome!) and they are now planning on approving the whole Roman Missal translation by the end of the year. Rome intends to grant the recognitio soon so that the new translation could be put into use throughout the world in end 2010 (Year given by the Cardinal of CDWS).

The granting of the recognitio for the Order of Mass I has shown that Rome will not take tardiness from Bishops Conference as an excuse for delaying the project: once a ‘substantial’ number of Conference has approved and submitted the translation, Rome will work on reviewing the texts, with, or without, the (name removed by moderator)ut from the rest of the conferences.

 

[SenorHorace]

Perhaps I’m not understanding you correctly, but the new English translation of the Ordinary Form of the Mass will be promulgated in about 2 years (yeah, I know, people have been saying ‘2 more years’ since 6 years ago.) The Australian Bishops’ Conference have already completed approving the entire new translation of the Roman Missal and will be submitting to Rome for the recognitio later this year after the Australian proper Masses are added. The Bishops Conference of England and Wales will complete approving the entire Roman Missal this Easter. While the US Bishops had wanted to tardy along, Rome had ordered the US Bishops to speed things up (Thank God for Rome!) and they are now planning on approving the whole Roman Missal translation by the end of the year. Rome intends to grant the recognitio soon so that the new translation could be put into use throughout the world in end 2010 (Year given by the Cardinal of CDWS).

The granting of the recognitio for the Order of Mass I has shown that Rome will not take tardiness from Bishops Conference as an excuse for delaying the project: once a ‘substantial’ number of Conference has approved and submitted the translation, Rome will work on reviewing the texts, with, or without, the (name removed by moderator)ut from the rest of the conferences.

That new English translation of the OF will not be the radical change some hope for.

 

[Canto]

That new English translation of the OF will not be the radical change some hope for.

Kind of agree as it is the same Latin text just more literally translated into English in lieu of Liturgiam Authenticam (sp?).

Having a more accurate translation which is harder (arguably) to deviate from and brings the scripturalness of the Mass to life i.e.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof,
but only say the world and my soul (servant) shall be healed

may aid in re-sacradising the Mass in a sense in some parishes, the laity/priest in my dreamland will then use some incense and chant, and silence before Mass, and not 120678560 Eucharist ministers.

 

[SenorHorace]

Kind of agree as it is the same Latin text just more literally translated into English in lieu of Liturgiam Authenticam (sp?).

Having a more accurate translation which is harder (arguably) to deviate from and brings the scripturalness of the Mass to life i.e.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof,
but only say the world and my soul (servant) shall be healed

may aid in re-sacradising the Mass in a sense in some parishes, the laity/priest in my dreamland will then use some incense and chant, and silence before Mass, and not 120678560 Eucharist ministers.

The Mass is always sacred – with or without these changes.

 

[Canto]

The Mass is always sacred – with or without these changes.

In a sense YES! The Mass is always sacred. It’s a sacrifice.

But, while subjective, does an up-tempo happy-clappy, hard to sing Great Amen to close the Eucharistic prayer aid the sacredness of the Mass and aid in one praying the Mass, as opposed to say a simple, singable chant? The Church has made clear in documents about what true Sacred music is. The same could be said about the Alleluia Gospel acclamation.

If you walk in to Mass and there is so much NOISE, does this aid the sacredness of the Mass?

Revelation 8:1 And when he had opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven…

The Agnus Dei (Lamb of God) is being sung and people are still shaking people’s hands etc.

Hope this clarifies, but maybe I’ve confused people even more.

 

[Dauphin]

And what do we make of the fact that all you see in the Pauline Mass is the consecration of “spiritual food?”

Father, you are holy indeed, and all creation rightly gives you praise. All life, all holiness comes from you through your Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, by the working of the Holy Spirit. From age to age you gather a people to yourself, so that from east to west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your name.
And so, Father, we bring you these gifts. We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit, that they may become the body and blood of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at whose command we celebrate this eucharist.
*
Father, calling to mind the death your Son endured for our salvation, his glorious resurrection and ascension into heaven, and ready to greet him when he comes again, we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice*. Look with favor on your Church’s offering, and see the Victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself. Grant that we, who are nourished by his body and blood, may be filled with his Holy Spirit, and become one body, one spirit in Christ. May be make us an everlasting gift to you and enable us to share in the inheritance of your saints, with Mary, the virgin Mother of God, with the apostles, the martyrs, and all your saints, on whose constant intercession we rely for help.

Lord, may this sacrifice, which has made our peace with you, advance the peace and salvation of all the world.

Really, this constant denigration of the Mass, whether it is celebrated by the Tridentine missal or the missal of Pope Paul VI is certainly beneath anyone who claims to be a “good” catholic. To turn one’s nose up at the Pauline Mass is to turn one’s nose up at Christ Himself.

You quoted Eucharistic Prayer 3, which is not what I was talking about (it’s actually just fine, although it isn’t an organic part of our tradition and doesn’t belong in the Roman Mass). This is the problem with the options in the OF - different Masses can communicate a different theology.

The Pauline Mass is not at all above criticism. No one has “canonized” this New Mass. To say that you can’t be a good Catholic and desire reform in continuity is absurd.