Does anyone else agree?

[totustuus2345]

I believe that the “highly criticized” Ordinary Form of the Mass can be celebrated as the Council fathers intended.

I also believe that it can be celebrated just as reverently, if not, more reverently that the Motu Proprio Mass.

But, I also believe that the Motu Proprio Mass should be available in every parish, and it should be held in high regard. The Ordinary Form should be held to the same standard of reverance as the Motu Proprio Mass.

Those fellow Catholics who think the Vatican II reforms are invalid seem to criticize those priests who have taken too much liberty in the Ordinary Form, and this is true there are those who have, but this is in incorrect interpretation of the Vatican II documents.

Who agrees that The Ordinary Form is the same Holy Sacrifice of Calvary as the Motu Proprio Mass, and can be just as reverent as the Motu Proprio Mass?

see:
youtube.com/watch?v=yD-xzhTfZIw&feature=related

THIS IS HOW IT SHOULD BE, WE NEED TO PRAY AND WORK IN OUR PARISHES TO MAKE THIS MORE COMMONPLACE!!

(I am blessed with a parish that is abuse free, although we haven’t reached the Latin Stage yet)

 

[JimR-OCDS]

totustuus

I believe that the “highly criticized” Ordinary Form of the Mass can be celebrated as the Council fathers intended.

Absolutely.

I also believe that it can be celebrated just as reverently, if not, more reverently that the Motu Proprio Mass.

The Novus Ordo can be celebrated reverently and even more.

Point of correction. There is no Motu Proprio Mass. Motu Proprio, is an edict allowing the Traditional Latin Mass from the Missal of Pope John XXIII.

But, I also believe that the Motu Proprio Mass should be available in every parish, and it should be held in high regard. The Ordinary Form should be held to the same standard of reverance as the Motu Proprio Mass.

I don’t agree. The TLM, should be allowed where there is a community that desires it, and is large enough for a priest to
be assigned to, by the Bishop. The final decision should be up to the Bishop.

Those fellow Catholics who think the Vatican II reforms are invalid seem to criticize those priests who have taken too much liberty in the Ordinary Form, and this is true there are those who have, but this is in incorrect interpretation of the Vatican II documents.

I agree, but there also people from the conservative bent, that also misinterpret the Vatican II documents. The bottom line once again, follow the directives of your Bishop.

Who agrees that The Ordinary Form is the same Holy Sacrifice of Calvary as the Motu Proprio Mass, and can be just as reverent as the Motu Proprio Mass?

Agreed.

God Bless
Jim

 

[benedictgal]

totustuus
Absolutely.

The Novus Ordo can be celebrated reverently and even more.

Point of correction. There is no Motu Proprio Mass. Motu Proprio, is an edict allowing the Traditional Latin Mass from the Missal of Pope John XXIII.

I don’t agree. The TLM, should be allowed where there is a community that desires it, and is large enough for a priest to
be assigned to, by the Bishop. The final decision should be up to the Bishop.

I agree, but there also people from the conservative bent, that also misinterpret the Vatican II documents. The bottom line once again, follow the directives of your Bishop.

Agreed.

God Bless
Jim

Actually, the Motu Propio that Pope Benedict issued regarding the Extraordinary Form of the Mass does not require the permission of the bishop. On the contrary, if the priest doesn’t want to celebrate the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, the people must inform the bishop who, in accordance with Ecclesia Dei, must honor their request.

The reason why the EF of the Mass was handled in the manner that Pope Benedict did it was to help bring about a restoration of solemnity, dignity and beauty to the Ordinary Form of the Mass. It is not the fault of the OF of the Mass. The reason that abuses have crept up is because people interpreted the Spirit of Vatican II without paying any attention to what the documents actually said.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Who agrees that The Ordinary Form is the same Holy Sacrifice of Calvary as the Motu Proprio Mass, and can be just as reverent as the Motu Proprio Mass?

Though, as others have pointed out bits of terminology, I would say:

The Pauline Rite Mass is the same Holy Sacrifice of Calvary as the Gregorian Rite Mass, and can be just as reverent as the Gregorian Rite Mass.

tee

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Actually, the Motu Propio that Pope Benedict issued regarding the Extraordinary Form of the Mass does not require the permission of the bishop.

 

[FrDavid96]

I believe that the “highly criticized” Ordinary Form of the Mass can be celebrated as the Council fathers intended.

I also believe that it can be celebrated just as reverently, if not, more reverently that the Motu Proprio Mass.

But, I also believe that the Motu Proprio Mass should be available in every parish, and it should be held in high regard. The Ordinary Form should be held to the same standard of reverance as the Motu Proprio Mass.

Those fellow Catholics who think the Vatican II reforms are invalid seem to criticize those priests who have taken too much liberty in the Ordinary Form, and this is true there are those who have, but this is in incorrect interpretation of the Vatican II documents.

Who agrees that The Ordinary Form is the same Holy Sacrifice of Calvary as the Motu Proprio Mass, and can be just as reverent as the Motu Proprio Mass?

see:
youtube.com/watch?v=yD-xzhTfZIw&feature=related

THIS IS HOW IT SHOULD BE, WE NEED TO PRAY AND WORK IN OUR PARISHES TO MAKE THIS MORE COMMONPLACE!!

(I am blessed with a parish that is abuse free, although we haven’t reached the Latin Stage yet)

I’ll agree on every point save “should be available in every parish”

There are some difficulties here. (in no particular order)

1. The priest (or a priest) has to know the Mass
2. Altar boys have to know the Mass
3. There has to be time in both the parish schedule and the priest’s schedule to allow for this
4. The necessary liturgical items have to be there (vestments, missal, altar cards, sanctus bells, etc.)
5. There needs to be an interest among the parishioners.

If all 5 of those can be met, then I’d say yes.
The Traditional Latin Mass is a lot more difficult to “make happen” than people actually realize.

As for your overall point, that the Novus Ordo may be celebrated with as much reverence, dignity, and solemnity as the TLM, I say absolutely yes. The problem is not to say that it cannot be, but rather that the reality is that it all too often is not.

 

[totustuus2345]

I’ll agree on every point save “should be available in every parish”

There are some difficulties here. (in no particular order)

1. The priest (or a priest) has to know the Mass
2. Altar boys have to know the Mass
3. There has to be time in both the parish schedule and the priest’s schedule to allow for this
4. The necessary liturgical items have to be there (vestments, missal, altar cards, sanctus bells, etc.)
5. There needs to be an interest among the parishioners.

If all 5 of those can be met, then I’d say yes.
The Traditional Latin Mass is a lot more difficult to “make happen” than people actually realize.

As for your overall point, that the Novus Ordo may be celebrated with as much reverence, dignity, and solemnity as the TLM, I say absolutely yes. The problem is not to say that it cannot be, but rather that the reality is that it all too often is not.

Let me rephrase,

The Extraordinary Form Should be made available in Every diocese so that those in whose parish there is no EF they would only need a short drive to the Church in which there is the EF, or, depending upon the size of the Diocese, a few churches per diocese

 

[benedictgal]

In parishes, yes it does require the Bishop’s permission. Only a Bishop assigns priests to the parishes in his dioceses and he’d would have to assign a priest who is willing and capable of saying the TLM.

Not true at all. No one can force a priest to say Mass of either format.

Motu Proprio, merely allows the EF to be celebrated, it doesn’t mandate it. In order for it to be celebrated, first there has to be priest willing, second, there has to be a congregation large enough to warrant a Bishop assigning such a priest to them. If these two conditions are met, yes, the Bishop can not refuse and I doubt any Bishop would refuse the request at this point.

As for reverence, I’ve grew up in the pre-Vatican II Church with the TLM. Reverence as in the NO, depends on the people who attended. When the TLM was the ordinary form, there was much abuse and lack of reverence. The priest who said the Mass the fastest, had more people in attendance than the priest who said it slow.

Jim

No, in parishes it does not require the bishop’s permission. That is why Pope Benedict issued that document in the first place. The only permission required is from the rector of a religious community that wants to have the EF celebrated on a regular basis.

Have you read what the MP says? It grants universal permission. If my PV wanted to celebrate the EF, he does not need the permission of the local ordinary. The MP is perfectly clear on that. The only time that the bishop intervenes is when the priest does not want to honor the requests of the faithful and the bishop has to solve that situation. If the bishop doesn’t want to do anything, then the faithful can petition the Ecclesia Dei commission directly.

 

[FrDavid96]

If I may:

I believe that what Jim is saying here is not so much that the bishop has to “give his permission” as such, but that since the bishop assigns priests, only those places where a priest who is willing and able to celebrate the Trad. Latin Mass will have it. In other words, it’s more of a practical issue than it is one of outright permission.

Let’s say that a given parish has the TLM. The bishop objects to this, but realizes that he can’t do anything about it. So instead of supressing it, he simply assigns a liberal priest who he knows would never do the TLM as the new pastor. The same thing could happen in reverse: if the bishop knows that a given parish wants the TLM, he could make it a point to assign a new pastor who does celebrate it as a way of accomodating the people.

 

[mattwcu]

I think one thing that may help here is a definition of what we mean by “reverent.”

I’ve seen an OF Mass on TV on EWTN at the Birmingham Oratory in England and it appeared to be what I would call “reverent.” However I think the main problem with the OF Mass in terms of reverence is that it is designed with the intention of being pedestrian. Essentially we are fighting upstream. It needs to be reformed gradually from what it originally was in order to make inherently reverent.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

FrDavid96;

I believe that what Jim is saying here is not so much that the bishop has to “give his permission” as such, but that since the bishop assigns priests, only those places where a priest who is willing and able to celebrate the Trad. Latin Mass will have it. In other words, it’s more of a practical issue than it is one of outright permission.

Correct.

Let’s say that a given parish has the TLM. The bishop objects to this, but realizes that he can’t do anything about it. So instead of supressing it, he simply assigns a liberal priest who he knows would never do the TLM as the new pastor.

The same thing could happen in reverse: if the bishop knows that a given parish wants the TLM, he could make it a point to assign a new pastor who does celebrate it as a way of accommodating the people.

In the end, it will be the Bishop who decides to allow the TLM to be said in his dioceses or not, for the reasons you point out here.

However, I think it has more to do with logistics, than a distaste for the TLM, on the part of the Bishop.

Currently in most dioceses across the USA, Bishops are struggling to keep parishes staffed with a priest to say the ordinary format, never mind trying to accommodate a handful of people who want the TLM.

In my dioceses, I have not heard of any parishes having TLM’s.

There is a Benedictine Monastery near me, who say the NO in Latin, but they are the exception.

There is a parish in the dioceses over the state line, that uses the TLM, but they’re in associated with Bishop Lefebvre, not with Rome.

God Bless
Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I think one thing that may help here is a definition of what we mean by “reverent.”

I’ve seen an OF Mass on TV on EWTN at the Birmingham Oratory in England and it appeared to be what I would call “reverent.” However I think the main problem with the OF Mass in terms of reverence is that it is designed with the intention of being pedestrian. Essentially we are fighting upstream. It needs to be reformed gradually from what it originally was in order to make inherently reverent.

It has nothing to do with the format, but the people.

People who are reverent in their prayer life, will be reverent at Mass, regardless of the format used.

Those who rarely pray, but go to Mass on Sunday, out of obligation, will be less reverent.

I’ve attended Masses in Latin and English at different monasteries in my area. Both are very reverent, because the people who take the time to go out of their way to attend Mass at these places, take their faith more seriously and are more reverent than the average Catholic attending Mass at a parish each Sunday.

In fact for my wife and myself, after attending Mass at the Benedictine Monastery for a while, we literally had to force ourselves to return to attending Mass at our parish. We did so, because it is in the parish where we were Baptized, married, and where we will have our funerals. The parish is our community, the monastery, we’re guest.

In all, reverence comes from the heart, not the rite.

Jim

 

[anamchara]

**It has nothing to do with the format, but the people.
**
People who are reverent in their prayer life, will be reverent at Mass, regardless of the format used.

Those who rarely pray, but go to Mass on Sunday, out of obligation, will be less reverent.

** In all, reverence comes from the heart, not the rite.
**
Jim

Excellent post.

 

[FrDavid96]

Here’s something else to keep in mind:

With the exception of the beginning of the Mass (prayers before the altar, for example) and some of the actual rubrics (like making the crosses over the offerings), there is very little difference between the two forms of Mass. That’s not what most people experience, and that’s not how most people perceive it. But a careful side-by-side examination of both forms shows only minor differences (assuming the Roman Canon is used).

I see that as a reminder that what we often experience as the Novus Ordo is far, far from what the Church intended at Vatican II or intends today.

Even the Last Gospel and the prayers after Mass are not part of the Mass itself.

Imagine the Novus Ordo celebrated in Latin, Ad Orientum, Roman Canon, with all due solemnity and dignity. Would it differ all that much from the Mass of 1962? I have indeed experienced both, and in my personal opinion, the answer is “no, not all that much.”

 

[KathleenElsie]

Some Catholics that have visited from Europe are shocked at the OF as it is done in the US. Even though they had read what was written in the threads on CA and other Forums they did not believe that what was said was happening.

The OF can be holy and a beautiful experience (a banquet so to speak). Unfortinutly we IMHO have few of the banquet type Masses at the parishes I have visited.

 

[totustuus2345]

Here’s something else to keep in mind:

With the exception of the beginning of the Mass (prayers before the altar, for example) and some of the actual rubrics (like making the crosses over the offerings), there is very little difference between the two forms of Mass. That’s not what most people experience, and that’s not how most people perceive it. But a careful side-by-side examination of both forms shows only minor differences (assuming the Roman Canon is used).

I see that as a reminder that what we often experience as the Novus Ordo is far, far from what the Church intended at Vatican II or intends today.

Even the Last Gospel and the prayers after Mass are not part of the Mass itself.

Imagine the Novus Ordo celebrated in Latin, Ad Orientum, Roman Canon, with all due solemnity and dignity. Would it differ all that much from the Mass of 1962? I have indeed experienced both, and in my personal opinion, the answer is “no, not all that much.”

I 110% agree!

 

[JPUSC]

I think if the current ordinary form was translated more accurately from the Latin Mass, if there were no omissions made (e.g., taking out some of the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, etc.) and there were no new novelties (e.g. Communion in the hand, altar girls), then the New Mass could be more reverant than the Tridentine Mass.

As the Vatican has implied, the current translation seems very pedestrian and doesn’t really touch me very much.

Before the Moto Propio, I used to think the only difference between the New Mass and the Tridentine Mass was the language, but after comparing the texts I was shocked. The translated words from the Latin Mass moved me to awe.

 

[totustuus2345]

I think if the current ordinary form was translated more accurately from the Latin Mass, if there were no omissions made (e.g., taking out some of the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, etc.) and there were no new novelties (e.g. Communion in the hand, altar girls), then the New Mass could be more reverant than the Tridentine Mass.

As the Vatican has implied, the current translation seems very pedestrian and doesn’t really touch me very much.

Before the Moto Propio, I used to think the only difference between the New Mass and the Tridentine Mass was the language, but after comparing the texts I was shocked. The translated words from the Latin Mass moved me to awe.

Hence the reason of the ICEL’s new Missale Romanum translation, I think the Mass will be a whole lot more beautiful then, and it might cause some more liberal abusive priests to rethink how they say Mass

 

[japhy]

With the exception of the beginning of the Mass (prayers before the altar, for example) and some of the actual rubrics (like making the crosses over the offerings), there is very little difference between the two forms of Mass. That’s not what most people experience, and that’s not how most people perceive it. But a careful side-by-side examination of both forms shows only minor differences (assuming the Roman Canon is used).

Several prayers have been moved elsewhere, changed (some drastically), or removed altogether. Certain rubrics (such as performing the Penitential Rite before approaching the altar) have been removed. A lot of symbolism was dropped from the Mass.

Certain propers have been altered, snipped and replaced, or dropped. The prayers of the Masses said on November 2nd (colloquially “All Souls”) never once mention the word “soul”.

The Calendar has been rearranged. Example: The feast of Christ the King (err, rather, Our Lord Jesus Christ, King of the Universe) was moved (granted, after only 40 years) and its focus changed somewhat. No more Septuagesima.

Why did the 3x3x3 Kyrie become 2x2x2? Why are there less genuflections to the Blessed Sacrament (especially in a time when reverence to the Blessed Sacrament is wanting)? One of the Consilium’s implementation documents actually used “the spirit of the times” as the reason for reducing signs of reverence in the Mass.

Yes, the O.F. is still Catholic, but it is considerably different from the Roman Rite as it had been celebrated for centuries, and one wonders if Vatican II really envisioned such a wholesale restructuring. Pope Benedict, before his election, had some rather negative things to say about the way the O.F. was concocted after Vatican II.

I see that as a reminder that what we often experience as the Novus Ordo is far, far from what the Church intended at Vatican II or intends today.

And one wonders why the Church has been so slow to correct this. Or improve catechesis.

 

[japhy]

Hence the reason of the ICEL’s new Missale Romanum translation, I think the Mass will be a whole lot more beautiful then, and it might cause some more liberal abusive priests to rethink how they say Mass

I’m thrilled for the upcoming translation, but I don’t have the same outlook as you.

I doubt it will make the “liberal [liturgically-]abusive priests” change at all. If they don’t say the Mass properly now, what will a book they can just ignore in three years change? They haven’t read (or else just won’t need) documents like Redemptionis Sacramentum. They’ll ignore the new Missal too. Or “use” it without following it.