Do you want the EF as normative for the entire Latin Church?

[Basilios]

You might want to re-think accusing the Vatican of deliberately misleading the faithful.

Who or what is ‘the Vatican’?

Popes, Prelates and Priests can and do mislead the faithful at times. That’s a fact. There’s nothing wrong with pointing out when they do or believing that they have done it.

 

[Lormar]

I voted “Yes and no exceptions”.

Mainly because the “EF” (as its now known) was normative for the entire Latin Church for nearly 2,000 years, and was then done away with due to very questionable wisdom indeed.

Recently I have learned that Vatican II did not call for Latin to be dropped, or for a totally new mass. Its clear that these things have come as a result of personal agendas. Personally I think we look ridiculous that we do not even seem to clearly understand how we have got to the situation we are in currently.

I dont advocate an “overnight switch” which I think could alienate many people.

Although, ultimately, I want the EF as normative, I would allow both forms to coexist (at least for a while).** I have no desire to marginalise, worry or offend people who are happy to remain at the novus ordo.** In some places, there is a lot of hurt due to how the EF is suppressed or maligned and I do not see any profit in simply switching to the inverse situation.

Ultimately, I think people would vote with their feet and the EF would become more popular. I also think people who are confused about, or dismissive of, the EF would come to love it, if they gave it a chance.

Yesterday, I attended mass twice, one latin mass and one novus ordo.

During one of the masses, all of this happened:

• mobile phones rang audibly during the service on two occasions
• on arrival, a young woman was seen not to bother genuflecting when going into her seat. I presume this was because her skirt was so obviously short that it barely covered her buttocks whilst she was standing, and so genuflecting would have caused (more) problems with modesty.
• another young woman arrived significantly late, during the liturgy of the word. Most of the attention was on her - not the readings - as she noisily entered the Church and proceeded to her seat whilst dressed like Lady Gaga, including towering heels (clack-clack-clack) and exceptionaly revealling “painted on” leggings. At first I thought she was looking for a nightclub and had wandered into the Church by accident.
• many people were observed talking amongst themselves during the mass.
• priests often failed to acknowledge the presence of the tabernacle, often breezing past without a second thought.
• 99.9% of people took communion in a way that is against the norms of the Church and in a casual fashion which weakens belief in the real presence.
• many people left the Church directly after communion, typically in the most noisy fashion possible (while others are trying to pray).
• at the end, a visiting priest was given the chance to make an appeal for charity - lasting just a few minutes. Several people couldnt be bothered listening and rudely got up and noisily left the Church when he was trying to address us.
• some people actually clapped the visiting priest, when he was finished. Obviously they got mixed up and thought they were sitting in the theatre, not Church.

Guess which mass all of this occured at?

Thats right, the Novus Ordo. And you know what else? That is not unusual, but rather ‘par for the course’, in my experience of the Novus Ordo.

And this is exactly why I wasnt the EF back as the norm.

I am sorry to say that I have witnessed all of what you have written too.

 

[JRKH]

Hi there,

You are right, thanks for correcting me.

I was really meaning that things had been largely constant for nearly 2000 years, but you are correct there were slightly different versions over time.

No problem. Glad you took my comments in the spirit they were intended.

Excellent point and yes, if the novus ordo was more reverant than I would be much happier with it.

My issues with it are not purely regarding reverance, but they largely are.

I also dislike the vernacular languages, as I feel these are a barrier between Catholics.
It makes sense for the Unviersal Church to have a Universal language.

Sure, I cant “speak latin” but during a latin mass I know what the priest is saying - thanks to hearing it often, or from using my missal. Accordingly, I could go into any latin mass in any nation in the world, and follow what was happening.

But when every nation uses its own language for the mass, that is an obvious barrier.

Also, if we only had latin masses - it would be dead easy to find a mass when on holiday. Just go to the nearest church and “bobs your uncle”.

However, with vernacular masses, you need to scrape around looking for an english language mass - which may not exist, or be very limited or whatever. And in my experience, such tourist masses are usually full of non-english speakers trying to use english as a common medium, with the result that the mass is usually shambolic*.

(*I attended a mass in english, in Venice, (Italy), but there were all kinds of nationalities at it, and the Priests english was quite poor and halting. I could have wept, it was actually painful. Looking back, I regret not volunteering to do a reading, as having my Scots accent in the confusing mix would have been the icing on the cake lol).

There is some validity in what you say, but in all honesty, while I have used this argument (languages) myself in the past, I have come to regard it as something of a red herring. If one knows the mass in their particular language, then no matter where they go, they can still participate.
You say (as I use to) that if Latin were used universally we could follow along in our Latin English missal - everyone would be praying in the same language. This is true, but if one is traveling and owns a N.O. missal one can still follow along. If one does not own a missal, the prayers can easily be printed off the internet. The only hitch would be the “responses”, the Gloria - Lord’s prayer etc…but certainly one could pray these quietly in English while others prayed in their vernacular.
I don’t discount the advantage of having the universal language mass…and this is an excellent reason for a wider understanding, acceptance and use of the EF - but as I say, I’ve come to regard this particular argument as not being very strong.

I have heard the rubics of the N.O are “too loose” and allow abuses / “ad-libbing” but I am no expert and so I wont pursue that point here.

To be honest, Im not keen on creating a new “hybrid” mass - we could very easily make a pigs ear of that and so endure another half century of chaos and decline.

Why not just go back to “the mass of all time”? We know it ‘works’.

Yes we know it works…But not as well as we might want to think and not necessarily for the reasons we might think.
I believe that the N.O. is something of a “flash point” for the wider issue of what has gone on since the close of Vatican II. Those who believe the return of the Latin mass will fix things are looking at a symptom and not the cause of the problem.

Incidentally, I am sure the Council of Trent made a statement saying it was forbidden for anyone to create a “new mass”, another reason to avoid invention.

I am not aware of this…though given the time in which the codifications were made it would not surprise me. These things were occurring during the Protestant reformation.

Cheers mate - I appreciated your thoughts.
Graham

You are welcome.

Originally Posted by JRKH View Post
Someone can correct me if I’m wrong…but doesn’t an “indult” make the thing “proper” where “proper” = permissible.

Sorry but this is simply not true. An indult gives permission. That permission makes it right…that which is right cannot be “essentially” wrong.
While in your opinion it is wrong to receive in the hand, our obedience to the Church should preclude us from making a statement like this which you made above…
“There is only one “proper” way to receive communion - receiving on the tongue, while kneeling.”
Such a statement is incorrect since the indult - duly and correctly given by the Church herself, (regardless of the reasons) - means there is more than one “proper way” to receive communion (where the indult applies). Such incorrect statements do not promote unity or openness to the wider use of the EF nor do they promote a more reverent celebration of the OF.

Sorry if the above sounds harsh…but I felt it needed saying.

Peace
James

 

[Seamus_L]

Number 1, but it would have to be a gradual process.

 

[Basilios]

Sorry but this is simply not true. An indult gives permission. That permission makes it right…that which is right cannot be “essentially” wrong.
While in your opinion it is wrong to receive in the hand, our obedience to the Church should preclude us from making a statement like this which you made above…
“There is only one “proper” way to receive communion - receiving on the tongue, while kneeling.”
Such a statement is incorrect since the indult - duly and correctly given by the Church herself, (regardless of the reasons) - means there is more than one “proper way” to receive communion (where the indult applies). Such incorrect statements do not promote unity or openness to the wider use of the EF nor do they promote a more reverent celebration of the OF.

Sorry if the above sounds harsh…but I felt it needed saying.

Peace
James

Sorry, but this is simply not true. I am sure that you know that certain moral goods override other moral goods. It is morally good to obey the Church, of course. But it is far morally superior to not commit sacrilege. Thus…

 

[JRKH]

Who or what is ‘the Vatican’?

Popes, Prelates and Priests can and do mislead the faithful at times. That’s a fact. There’s nothing wrong with pointing out when they do or believing that they have done it.

You are right…There is nothing wrong with having discussions on the matter. Where we may cross the line is when we teach others that some teaching of the Church is definitely in error.

As for who and what is “the Vatican”…I think the best answer to that is that “The Vatican” as used here is, in it’s essentials, the deposit of faith and all of the properly authorized and documented teachings of the Catholic Church.
It is those teachings that one would need to refer to any discussion of where error might be occurring.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Sorry, but this is simply not true. I am sure that you know that certain moral goods override other moral goods. It is morally good to obey the Church, of course. But it is far morally superior to not commit sacrilege. Thus…

You are quite correct of course in the overall sense. I was speaking in the specific instance of our conversation here.
I don’t think that the matter of the number of permissible ways to receive communion quite rises to the test of a “moral good” that validates disobedience to the Church OR (more importantly) to teaching others that that an indult is just “permission to do it wrong”.

Peace
James

 

[anruari]

Could you cite your source, please?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indult

 

[anruari]

In that case, what’s wrong with mass in Latin then???

But the debate is not about the difference between having a OF mass in your local vernacular and th OF mass in Latin. The debate is between the OF mass (assumed to be in the local vernacular) and the EF mass, which can only be in Latin.

It’s important not to mix up these not very subtle distinctions.

Now some points.
It’s not EF vs NO. it’s EF vs OF. calling the ordinary form of the Mass, the NO, while calling the Tridintine form the EF, is disrespectful. Be consistant in the terms you use. If you say EF, or Extradoradinary Form, then call the Ordinary Form the Ordinary Form. or the EF.

It’ important to remember the distinctions between the EF offered in a proper manner, faithful to the guidance and rulesgiven by the Magisterium, and the EF as it is seen in many parishes littered with every abuse doing the rounds.

If we could follow the rubrics, and offer the Mass how it’s supposed to be offered, and ensure that it includes Mass offered in Latin in every area, and with a proper sense of respect and reverence, then many of those clamouring for the EF mass would be far less upset, and would probably be quite satisfied by the more solemn forms of the OF mass.

Here’s some points: All Catholics should be familiar with the Latin form of the OF. They should know and be able make the main responses in Latin. They should be familiar with Gregorian Chant, and the Antiphons and Graduale. They should be well catechized, and should know better than to be disrespectful in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament or during the Divine Liturgy.

When a mass is being said explicitly for group who do not have a common language IT SHOULD BE OFFERED IN LATIN. - Therefore “Tourist” masses should be the OF in Latin!!!

The only time a touring group should have the mass offered in their own language is when a large pilgrimage group are traveling and are having a mass for their group. - A long term stable group of Ex-Pats, should normally attend mass in Latin, or one of the Permitted Verncular Translations for the diocese in which they are living. - Not the language of their home country. (assuming that’s not a Local Language).

Most Large parishes, or clusters of parishes should have maintained a weekly mass in Latin. The present situation where few parishes have a Latin Mass, and most of those who do have a E.F. mass, was never the intention of the Magisterium (whatever about the intention of the local bishops)

 

[october_baby]

Since, allowing the Latin Mass is up to the Bishop of the Diocese, and a lot of them
DO NOT approve of the Latin Mass, I think this debate is counterproductive.

 

[GangGreen]

I still think a hybrid type Mass could work for the time being and would probably be much more successful than the current form of the Mass.

LotW
Same as OF Mass with the following changes
Kyrie - Sung in Greek in all Masses with music. In Masses without music it can be said in the vernacular
Gloria - Sung in Latin in all Masses with music. In Masses without music it can be said in vernacular
Gospel - Chanted in vernacular in all Masses with music. In Masses without music it can be spoken.
Credo - Sung in Latin in all Masses with music. In Masses without music it can be said in vernacular

LotE
From Offertory until after the Agnus Dei the priest faces Ad Orientem.
The prayers are entirely in Latin (Including the Lord’s Prayer).
The Eucharistic prayers are expanded and are made more closely to resemble the EF.
The actions of the priest more resemble those of the EF. The rubrics here are to be strict with no room for deviation.
Deacons, alter servers, and anyone else who is in/near the sanctuary are required to receive on the tongue while kneeling. (This should be expanded to everyone, but the example set by others would hopefully bring this about)
EMOHC are only to be used when clergy cannot finish giving Communion in under 10 minutes.
Priests should regularly inform the laity that they CANNOT receive Communion unless they are in a state of sanctifying grace (should also reduce the amount of time of needed to distribute Communion).
Pre-Communion fast should be change to at a minimum of 1 hour prior to the beginning of Mass rather than 1 hour prior to receiving Communion.

Also, incense should be used in most Masses.

 

[JRKH]

Since, allowing the Latin Mass is up to the Bishop of the Diocese, and a lot of them
DO NOT approve of the Latin Mass, I think this debate is counterproductive.

I don’t believe this is entirely true anymore. Didn’t Pope Benedict issue a directive that priests did not have to receive permission from from the Bishop in order to offer the EF?

Peace
James

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I don’t believe this is entirely true anymore. Didn’t Pope Benedict issue a directive that priests did not have to receive permission from from the Bishop in order to offer the EF?

Peace
James

Yes & No. Any priest may offer the EF in a private Mass.
The Ordinary’s permission is needed if a priest wants to celebrate a public EF,
and it can not be done at the expense of a regular OF.

It’s really not as “cut & dry” as many people here on CAF would like to make it out to be.

 

[JRKH]

Yes & No. Any priest may offer the EF in a private Mass.
The Ordinary’s permission is needed if a priest wants to celebrate a public EF,
and it can not be done at the expense of a regular OF.

It’s really not as “cut & dry” as many people here on CAF would like to make it out to be.

Thanks for Clarifying

Peace
James

 

[maryjk]

I still think a hybrid type Mass could work for the time being and would probably be much more successful than the current form of the Mass.

LotW
Same as OF Mass with the following changes
Kyrie - Sung in Greek in all Masses with music. In Masses without music it can be said in the vernacular
Gloria - Sung in Latin in all Masses with music. In Masses without music it can be said in vernacular
Gospel - Chanted in vernacular in all Masses with music. In Masses without music it can be spoken.
Credo - Sung in Latin in all Masses with music. In Masses without music it can be said in vernacular

LotE
From Offertory until after the Agnus Dei the priest faces Ad Orientem.
The prayers are entirely in Latin (Including the Lord’s Prayer).
The Eucharistic prayers are expanded and are made more closely to resemble the EF.
The actions of the priest more resemble those of the EF. The rubrics here are to be strict with no room for deviation.
Deacons, alter servers, and anyone else who is in/near the sanctuary are required to receive on the tongue while kneeling. (This should be expanded to everyone, but the example set by others would hopefully bring this about)
EMOHC are only to be used when clergy cannot finish giving Communion in under 10 minutes.
Priests should regularly inform the laity that they CANNOT receive Communion unless they are in a state of sanctifying grace (should also reduce the amount of time of needed to distribute Communion).
Pre-Communion fast should be change to at a minimum of 1 hour prior to the beginning of Mass rather than 1 hour prior to receiving Communion.

Also, incense should be used in most Masses.

So what you want is an OF that looks like or is slowly moving toward the EF?

Why don’t you just say so, rather than being sneaky about it?

 

[Brendan_64]

Just as a point of information, there is no form of Mass called the NO mass, it is the OF Mass. I do wonder why some people seem to want not to refer to the Ordinary Form of Mass of our Church by its proper name.

 

[jwinch2]

The Tridentine Mass was a reform of the previous uses. Pope St Gregory the Great reformed the previous Roman Mass. You can also see this in the East as St John Chrysostom reformed St Basil the Great’s reform of the Byzantine Mass.

My understanding of this is that Popes Gregory and Pius V codified that which was already developed, rather than creating something new.

 

[ProVobis]

I’ve frequently, when traveling attended Masses in German, Spanish, French and Italian. I would attend Mass in English if it were convenient, but I’ve never felt the need to go out of my way to find one. It is still the Mass, and I still know what’s going on. That’s the universality of the church. No matter what the language, the same Mass is celebrated - it is the same sacrifice. That transcends language.

Well, due to the fact it’s just a block down the street, I’ve been attending the Spanish Mass more lately. There is so much adlibbing and long-sermoning that I am finding the Mass harder and harder to follow. If they could just stick to the text…Is it really necessary for the congregation to respond, “Buenos días, padre” to begin Mass?

 

[Lormar]

My understanding of this is that Popes Gregory and Pius V codified that which was already developed, rather than creating something new.

That is what I read too.

 

[jwinch2]

Just as a point of information, there is no form of Mass called the NO mass, it is the OF Mass. I do wonder why some people seem to want not to refer to the Ordinary Form of Mass of our Church by its proper name.

The first time Ordinary Form was used in reference to the Mass of Paul VI per my understanding was when Pope Benedict called it such in Summorum Pontificum in relation to Mass celebrated under the 1962 Missal. So, for 40 years or more, it had been commonly referred to as the New Order of Mass. This can be seen in Vatican documents or in statements from Cardinals, etc. Here is an example: adoremus.org/Ratzinger_EcclesiaDei.html

Moreover, one must say this: that the freedom which the new order of Mass gives to creativity is often taken to excessive lengths (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger). emphasis mine

I am unaware of any statement from the Vatican or elsewhere to the effect that one must only refer to the Mass as the ‘OF’ and it can no longer be referred to as the ‘NO’ or the ‘Mass of Paul VI’. Perhaps there is something I have missed, and if so I will gladly stand corrected. For purposes of clarity, I typically use OF and EF when referring to the two forms of the Mass, but I am not going to get bent out of shape if someone refers to them as the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine Rite either.