Consolidating the EF and the OF Masses

[rosary_kat]

If this topic has been done to death, I apologize. There are literally thousands of messages on this long-running forum and I could probably be searching forever just for the search parameters to search for . So here goes.

I have been to a couple of Masses in the Extraordinary Form (Latin Mass) and I’ve watched several, low and high, on DVD and elsewhere. I’m not a young’n, but I don’t remember the Masses of my childhood before, say, 1968. I actually get nervous watching the servers take their positions hither and yon from side to side of the altar, the priest moving from center to left to right to over there sitting down, just to return to the altar after the choir sings. Yes, I have a 1962 missal and I follow along. Usually the priest/servers know their Latin so well that I can’t read the English translation fast enough. Yes, it’s beautiful, yes, it’s much more reverent, but I’d really like to hear what the priest is saying when he’s praying and I like to see what the priest is doing. It means so much to me to watch the preparation and consecration, that part of the Mass really pulls me into the sacrifice. I am all for Catholics learning their Latin. There’s got to be a way to combine the two so that reverence and beauty are maintained as well as congregational “participation” (at least with the sense of sight and hearing if nothing else). On the flip side, I do not like holding hands with anyone except my immediate family, and I’ve never been comfortable with the ‘sign of peace’ (too much chatter). I do wish the choir or the musicians would tune up before they enter the choir loft if only because I like to take a few minutes to pray and enter into the presence of God. Yes, I’ve seen the EWTN Masses. I like them, too. A real sense of decorum is achieved and maintained. I don’t think the only music should be Gregorian Chant (let’s face it, not everybody can make a two-syllable word like ‘Amen’ into a 13-syllable chant… you know you get lost at the third or fourth note, admit it. : )

NO, this is not a debate :blackeye: as to which is better and I’d rather not go there at all. However, I’d like to hear what others think who, like me, believe there’s got to be a middle ground.

I’ll close with this thought: When the Mass was changed from Greek to Latin, lo these many years/centuries ago, can you imagine what hullaballoo went on ? Yet the Church did not fold or implode. So, I am hopeful, very hopeful.

Thank you for your comments, I look forward to them all.:heaven:

 

[ConstantineTG]

If this topic has been done to death, I apologize. There are literally thousands of messages on this long-running forum and I could probably be searching forever just for the search parameters to search for . So here goes.

I have been to a couple of Masses in the Extraordinary Form (Latin Mass) and I’ve watched several, low and high, on DVD and elsewhere. I’m not a young’n, but I don’t remember the Masses of my childhood before, say, 1968. I actually get nervous watching the servers take their positions hither and yon from side to side of the altar, the priest moving from center to left to right to over there sitting down, just to return to the altar after the choir sings. Yes, I have a 1962 missal and I follow along. Usually the priest/servers know their Latin so well that I can’t read the English translation fast enough. Yes, it’s beautiful, yes, it’s much more reverent, but I’d really like to hear what the priest is saying when he’s praying and I like to see what the priest is doing. It means so much to me to watch the preparation and consecration, that part of the Mass really pulls me into the sacrifice. I am all for Catholics learning their Latin. There’s got to be a way to combine the two so that reverence and beauty are maintained as well as congregational “participation” (at least with the sense of sight and hearing if nothing else). On the flip side, I do not like holding hands with anyone except my immediate family, and I’ve never been comfortable with the ‘sign of peace’ (too much chatter). I do wish the choir or the musicians would tune up before they enter the choir loft if only because I like to take a few minutes to pray and enter into the presence of God. Yes, I’ve seen the EWTN Masses. I like them, too. A real sense of decorum is achieved and maintained. I don’t think the only music should be Gregorian Chant (let’s face it, not everybody can make a two-syllable word like ‘Amen’ into a 13-syllable chant… you know you get lost at the third or fourth note, admit it. : )

NO, this is not a debate :blackeye: as to which is better and I’d rather not go there at all. However, I’d like to hear what others think who, like me, believe there’s got to be a middle ground.

I know many Traditionalists will not agree with this, but I’m not opposed at all to a Tridentine Mass in the vernacular. Same rubrics, same everything, only in the vernacular.

I’ll close with this thought: When the Mass was changed from Greek to Latin, lo these many years/centuries ago, can you imagine what hullaballoo went on ? Yet the Church did not fold or implode. So, I am hopeful, very hopeful.

There probably wasn’t. Mass was always in the vernacular back then. So Masses in Rome will always be in Latin, Masses in and around Greece will be in Greek, Masses in Jerusalem will be in Aramaic, etc. There was never a teaching that Mass should be in one language. Usually an particular, what we call today a sui juris Church is established in each locale. So each particular Church would have its own liturgical language and because they only occupy a certain territory, that entire territory speaks that language. What happened with the Latin Church was that it expanded westward into France, Spain and the UK. Then these three countries became world empires and brought the faith to the world, still preserving the Latin Rite tradition.

Thank you for your comments, I look forward to them all.:heaven:

 

[At_Trent]

Speculation on the matter makes a good topic, but the Gregorian Rite per the 1962 Missal is to remain as it is according to His Excellency, Archbishop Burke, Prefect, Apostolic Signatura.

That position H.E. holds is one of the highest in the Hierarchy, and his appointment to it came after the Motu Proprio of H.H. BXVI freeing the Gregorian Rite of indult. I’m sure H.H. holds the same sentiment on the matter.

Deo gratias

 

[ProVobis]

I know many Traditionalists will not agree with this, but I’m not opposed at all to a Tridentine Mass in the vernacular.

It doesn’t matter what you’re opposed to or not opposed to because the Tridentine is only allowed in Latin and said by a priest who knows “good Latin.”

youtube.com/watch?v=mqnjgg1vNgU

I doubt if the Vatican would want to have to authorize hundreds of vernaculars for the EF soon. It’s difficult to translate and besides, the Latin is a great part of its appeal.

That said, you could always attend an Anglican Use liturgy where it is a similar Mass in Elizabethean English, I believe.

 

[ProVobis]

I’ll close with this thought: When the Mass was changed from Greek to Latin, lo these many years/centuries ago, can you imagine what hullaballoo went on ? Yet the Church did not fold or implode. So, I am hopeful, very hopeful.

I’m not sure the language change was similar to the one we had back in the 60’s. It probably was more gradual and places where they had no Mass like African didn’t have Mass at all until the Latin Mass was introduced and flourished. Latin was common to most in the Roman Empire but to many it was not really their true vernacular either as much vulgarization of the Latin had taken place, especially amongst the illiterates. At least that’s what I gathered from reading all the stories behind it. But your sources may tell you differently.

We know some things, some of the Greek and Hebrew were left in the Latin Mass and the Latin meanings were very stable for many centuries. And from the ruins of Pompeii, they have found evidence Latin could have been in the liturgy much earlier than the third century.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It doesn’t matter what you’re opposed to or not opposed to because the Tridentine is only allowed in Latin and said by a priest who knows “good Latin.”

youtube.com/watch?v=mqnjgg1vNgU

I doubt if the Vatican would want to have to authorize hundreds of vernaculars for the EF soon. It’s difficult to translate and besides, the Latin is a great part of its appeal.

That said, you could always attend an Anglican Use liturgy where it is a similar Mass in Elizabethean English, I believe.

Of course it matters what I want. This is a “what if” thread, not a “what is” thread. Lighten up dude

If it were truly up to me, I would combine a little bit of something from every particular Church, from every Rite, and create a common Rite. But again, thats just dreaming.

 

[At_Trent]

There probably wasn’t. ** Mass was always in the vernacular back then. **

So Masses in Rome will always be in Latin, Masses in and around Greece will be in Greek, Masses in Jerusalem will be in Aramaic, etc. .

Constantine, Are you familiar with the liturgical texts unearthed recently ? They are in Latin, and * indicate* that the liturgy was indeed prayed in Latin in some Arabic areas in the first century A.D.

I have no joy in proving you wrong, but we finally may have proof the liturgy wasn’t always in the vernacular. Last I read, they are waiting for further verification and dating of the texts, but no one who has examined them have contested their authenticity.

 

[Like]

I know many Traditionalists will not agree with this, but I’m not opposed at all to a Tridentine Mass in the vernacular. Same rubrics, same everything, only in the vernacular.

I might be wrong, but this sounds like what the OF was intended to be or very similar. Please correct if I’m wrong. wrong…

 

[ljubim]

I know many Traditionalists will not agree with this, but I’m not opposed at all to a Tridentine Mass in the vernacular. Same rubrics, same everything, only in the vernacular.

To be honest I hope the OF turns into this over the next few centuries But that we keep the EF in Latin separate and untouched, just as it has been even over these last few rocky decades.

 

[OraLabora]

I don’t think Latin is at risk. It is after all still the official language of the Ordinary Form. I doubt that if the vernacular were “allowed” in the Tridentine form, Latin will end up banned.

 

[crazzeto]

I’m not sure the language change was similar to the one we had back in the 60’s. It probably was more gradual and places where they had no Mass like African didn’t have Mass at all until the Latin Mass was introduced and flourished. Latin was common to most in the Roman Empire but to many it was not really their true vernacular either as much vulgarization of the Latin had taken place, especially amongst the illiterates. At least that’s what I gathered from reading all the stories behind it. But your sources may tell you differently.

We know some things, some of the Greek and Hebrew were left in the Latin Mass and the Latin meanings were very stable for many centuries. And from the ruins of Pompeii, they have found evidence Latin could have been in the liturgy much earlier than the third century.

This will depend upon where you are, a place like Alexandria certainly had the Mass early on. I think perhaps you are on to something with the mass change being more gradual, however I would suggest that if this was the case it would more than likely have been more due to the vast distances and lower technology. Simply put, it would have taken longer for the required materials to propagate, and I have no doubts that word of the change in mass probably outpaced (significantly) the ability of the Church to implement.

By the 1960’s you could already pick a date and bam, Mass changes for everyone. Still the OP has a good point about the similarities between the ancient change, and the more recent one. The only exception is that originally the Vatican was unwilling to translate the Kyrie, that I don’t believe, was done until the 1960s.

 

[rosary_kat]

youtube.com/watch?v=mqnjgg1vNgU

I love the way Cardinal Arinza clarified that those who want the Latin Mass can have it as long as there is no protestation against the Ordinary Form and no one challenges the VC2. That’s very important. He also pointed out that there are many nations where this isn’t even an issue. I think one of the best things that came out of the “new” Mass is the ABC cycles of readings. That is wonderful, IMHO.

Thank you for your comments.

 

[Pregustator]

Well, I seem to think that RosaryKat’s question really points to the matter of how the reform of the liturgy was actually handled after Vatican II and then implemented.

My understanding is that, at Rome, the Ordinary Form is usually celebrated with all due solemnity and grandeur. Incense is used regularly, as are chant and polyphony, and priests are typically decked in baroque vestments, lace, and even birettas. Visually and sensibly, the way the Ordinary Form is celebrated represents no discernible break from the way the Tridentine form is typically celebrated.

The typical experience of the celebration of the Ordinary Form in the United States, however, is a rather different one. The celebration is typically accompanied by contemporary music of questionable artistry, the vestments worn by the clergy are often equally unappealing, and in many cases the very architecture of the church precludes any sort of majesty or solemnity. Oftentimes the celebration of Mass according to the Ordinary Form can be downright banal.

I often wish that the presentation of the liturgical reforms had not involved such a dramatic departure from what existed before. It would be ideal, I think, if we didn’t have an Ordinary Form vs. an Extraordinary Form of Mass, but instead one form of the Roman Rite that wasn’t as rigid and as penitential as the Tridentine form, but was more solemn and majestic than the Ordinary Form.

Someone mentioned the idea of simply having the old form in the vernacular. I have attended high church Episcopalian Communion services and that is essentially what you see. I hate to say it, but I think the high church Anglicans have a much more beautiful and more Catholic-seeming service than our “OF” Mass.

If the reformers had produced something along the order of what the high Anglicans have instead of what we now have, I’ll bet we wouldn’t even be having this discussion today. I doubt, in that case, that there would be a “traditionalist” wing of the Church.

 

[ProVobis]

I might be wrong, but this sounds like what the OF was intended to be or very similar. Please correct if I’m wrong. wrong…

It is argued that the 1965 Missal was what Vatican II intended. However, it was very short-lived. I doubt if we go down that road again.

 

[Bob_Aliano]

To be honest I hope the OF turns into this over the next few centuries But that we keep the EF in Latin separate and untouched, just as it has been even over these last few rocky decades.

What?

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t think Latin is at risk. It is after all still the official language of the Ordinary Form. I doubt that if the vernacular were “allowed” in the Tridentine form, Latin will end up banned.

I respectfully disagree. If you start taking Latin out little by little, then fewer and fewer people study it until there’s no reason to keep it anymore. Much of it has happened already and it’s created so much damage in the way of mistranslations, miscommunications, and misinformation, most Catholics cringe at the thought of having any Latin at all. Sad. The wiser thing, in my opinion, would be to have both the Latin with the vernacular. That way you’ll not only understand it better, but the vernacular will sound more authentic. And when the vernacular changes meanings, and they do so almost on a daily basis, you simply substitute another word, but the Latin stays as it is. There are reasons why Pope John XXIII effectively banned vernacular and Vatican II voted to keep the Latin. Those reasons are just as valid today as they were back then.

 

[ProVobis]

Someone mentioned the idea of simply having the old form in the vernacular. I have attended high church Episcopalian Communion services and that is essentially what you see. I hate to say it, but I think the high church Anglicans have a much more beautiful and more Catholic-seeming service than our “OF” Mass.

If the reformers had produced something along the order of what the high Anglicans have instead of what we now have, I’ll bet we wouldn’t even be having this discussion today. I doubt, in that case, that there would be a “traditionalist” wing of the Church.

I too have heard very high praise for the Anglican liturgy. However, would many Poles or Italians or Germans attend it? That I think is the point of the one poster who pointed out that any one vernacular, even Elizabethean English, is hardly a universal language to bring everyone to the Catholic Church.

That said, there is the Anglican Use Mass for those who prefer the Traditional Mass in that particular flavor of English.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I too have heard very high praise for the Anglican liturgy. However, would many Poles or Italians or Germans attend it? That I think is the point of the one poster who pointed out that any one vernacular, even Elizabethean English, is hardly a universal language to bring everyone to the Catholic Church.

I think when we said vernacular, it would mean Spanish for Spain and South America, English for the US, Canada, UK, Australia, Chinese for China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, etc. Not English for all.

That said, there is the Anglican Use Mass for those who prefer the Traditional Mass in that particular flavor of English.

Can’t wait for that to make it here north of the border. There is a TAC parish within the diocese just waiting for full Communion.

 

[OraLabora]

I think when we said vernacular, it would mean Spanish for Spain and South America, English for the US, UK, Australia, Chinese for China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, etc. Not English for all.

Can’t wait for that to make it here north of the border. There is a TAC parish within the diocese just waiting for full Communion.

French and English for Canada.

 

[ProVobis]

I think when we said vernacular, it would mean Spanish for Spain and South America, English for the US, Canada, UK, Australia, Chinese for China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, etc. Not English for all.

Speaking from my financial background, would the benefits exceed the costs to authenticize the Anglican Mass or EF into all the vernaculars? Wouldn’t we have the same problems with its translations as we do with the OF? Probably more, I would think. I certainly wouldn’t drive for 30 miles to attend an English Mass I could attend a couple of blocks away. That would be silly. Mass is Mass after all. If we have money to burn, could we maybe help the world’s hungry or help pregnant women instead?