P
ProVobis
Guest
It doesn’t. Only might make our moves from place to place a little more comfortable or when parishes merge. I mean we would like a little familiarity with the liturgy, don’t we? Just sayin…
Ad Orientem, good post.
- Status
Ad Orientem, good post.
J
Jack007
Guest
i agree with both ad orientem and cat as i understand them.
P
pianistclare
Guest
Yes, agreed. That’s why in my particular area, our parish is labeled a “liberal, modern parish” and the church 8 miles away is called an “old fashioned, traditional parish”.
Our parish has odd innovations, the other, seems like every other parish I’ve ever been to.
The bottom line for both is: while ours claims to be more friendly, more accessible, our ministries are few. The other, more “regular” parish has well over 100 thriving ministries and outreach programs.
My point is, a small bit of personalization by the parish is fine, but when you go about trying this trying that, and not just simply going by the book, you mess with things to the point where it doesn’t appeal to anyone. It’s just “different” with no good results.
I believe the Church has things a certain way because they are correct and they work!
But I do somewhat agree, that the obsession with sameness can be a problem in and of itself if there’s no room for culture and charism.
P
ProVobis
Guest
There’s always room for culture and charism even in an assimilating culture. Even before Vatican II there were “Polish” and other ethnic parishes which drew interested parties. Their 10-minute sermons and confessions were different, of course. So maybe too their closing hymn, among other things. But one could attend their regular liturgy and follow it exactly the way they were familiar with.
M
Megan7
Guest
I agree, good post Ad Orientem:thumbsup:
Thanks Pro Vobis. Your posts are always educational, helpful, spot on, well mannered:thumbsup: And extremely patient
God bless.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Thank you, Megan.I agree, good post Ad Orientem:thumbsup:
Thanks Pro Vobis. Your posts are always educational, helpful, spot on, well mannered:thumbsup: And extremely patient
God bless.
C
Cat
Guest
I’m not obsessed with novelty. I don’t consider it a novelty to speak and hear my own language. Jesus did around the people that He ministered to.
I don’t consider it a novelty to listen to or sing/play lovely hymns and songs that were written specifically for Mass/worship services.
I don’t consider it a novelty for a priest to select from one of several prayers.
I don’t consider it a novelty to have the choice of receiving Holy Communion on my tongue or in my hand.
To me, novelty is what we saw in the Evangelical Protestant churches, where one week, we would have a play/drama for our worship service, the next week, we would have a discussion panel with questions from the congregation, the next week we would have the youth in charge, including giving the sermon, and the next week would be “traditional” Sunday with only organ music and old hymns. These are all true experiences that we had in one of our Evangelical Protestant churches. That’s novelty–when you never know what the “worship experience” will be.
G
godisgood77
Guest
The Catholic Liturgical Movement is closing in on 200 years since it began. To fully understand why the Church saw fit to reform its liturgy, one has to go back a ways in time to research the development of the movement. It certainly wasn’t something that began during or around VII. Nor was it a hasty change. It was something that was the culmination of decades and decades of thought, study and action.
While we always have to go deeper in our research than what we would find on wikipedia…This is a good jumping off point for anyone looking to gain a high level understanding of the movements origins. From there, there are a wealth of books, documents and resources that one can find to add depth to that initial understanding.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgical_Movement
While we always have to go deeper in our research than what we would find on wikipedia…This is a good jumping off point for anyone looking to gain a high level understanding of the movements origins. From there, there are a wealth of books, documents and resources that one can find to add depth to that initial understanding.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgical_Movement
B
babochka
Guest
I wonder if my experience is significantly different from yours. I don’t find the changes from place to place to be that challenging, as long as I’m at a Mass that is celebrated within the rubrics. The music might be different, and I certainly prefer traditional music to praise and worship music, particularly for the Mass, but that is the only change that I really notice. I’ve attended Mass in 7 countries and probably 15 states. I’ve always felt like I belonged and that I knew just what was going on, even when the Mass was in a foreign language. Everything has always been very familiar. I’ve come across the occasional parish in which the people didn’t kneel (which bothers me - is a little obedience going to kill you?) and one strange parish in which they processed up for communion with the back row going first and worked up from there (the first shall be last and the last shall be first?), but really, the Mass was blessedly the same.
Within the Churches of the Byantine rite, we have some variety even within the same liturgy -the Ruthenians do it one way, the Ukrainians have their way, the Romanians another, and Italo-Albanians yet another. The Melkites can seem way different. We each have our own translation of the liturgy and our own way of doing things. Most Byzantines give communion on a spoon, but the Melkites intinct by hand and administer Holy Communion that way. No big deal. Some jurisdictions include/omit various prayers and litanies. You adjust. Sometimes the royal doors and/or curtain are closed during the consecration, other jurisdictions keep them open. Some priests pray the anaphora during the singing of the Holy, Holy, Holy. Others wait until it is over and pray it aloud (less traditional, but increasingly common among Catholic and Orthodox alike). At any rate, we adjust and these are not unity-killing issues.
E
edwest2
Guest
A few words from Pope Benedict:
"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.
"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.
“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”
Hope this helps,
Ed
"In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question.
"This fear is unfounded. In this regard, it must first be said that the Missal published by Paul VI and then republished in two subsequent editions by John Paul II, obviously is and continues to be the normal Form – the Forma ordinaria – of the Eucharistic Liturgy. The last version of the Missale Romanum prior to the Council, which was published with the authority of Pope John XXIII in 1962 and used during the Council, will now be able to be used as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgical celebration. It is not appropriate to speak of these two versions of the Roman Missal as if they were “two Rites”. Rather, it is a matter of a twofold use of one and the same rite.
“As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted. At the time of the introduction of the new Missal, it did not seem necessary to issue specific norms for the possible use of the earlier Missal. Probably it was thought that it would be a matter of a few individual cases which would be resolved, case by case, on the local level. Afterwards, however, it soon became apparent that a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood. This was especially the case in countries where the liturgical movement had provided many people with a notable liturgical formation and a deep, personal familiarity with the earlier Form of the liturgical celebration. We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”
Hope this helps,
Ed
J
JReducation
Guest
I’m going to start off by asking for absolution to the extent that you folks can grant it. What I’m saying is that in my religious family we don’t use terms such as conservative, liberal, traditional, tradition, or traditionalist to mean the same things that the laity means. If I use the term in a way that appears incorrect, it’s probably because I’m using it the way that we would use it in a conventual setting or a university classroom.
Having said this, I think that much of the debate about the OF and the EF is taking place because people don’t really understand one form of the mass or the other. In some cases, people don’t understand either form of the mass. Just look at how incorrectly people use the term rite. I’ve even heard religious and clergymen refer to the Tridentine Rite. There is no such thing. There is a Roman Rite with two forms. There are several Latin Rites and those often have different forms according to local customs. For example, the Dominican Rite is a Latin Rite. It is not the Roman mass. When it was used more, there were slight variations from one province to another, because of culture.
This leads me to another point that I find to be very important. That is that there has never been a call for “indistinguishability” in the Latin Church. I’d like to offer an example, and then I’ll sit down and be quiet. In our community the EF cannot be celebrated unless the major superior grants permission. The constitution is very clear on this. The Rule of St. Francis is very clear that if there is more than one priest in a house, only one can celebrate mass. The other joins the congregation. In the case of a parish, this is not the case, because you have several masses. The case is that the superior decides when the EF is celebrated, because *Summorum Pontificum *says that religious must look to the major superior and proper law. Contrary to public opinion, a priest who is a religious cannot celebrate the EF whenever and where ever he wants to do so. I’m not sure how people concluded this.
In this area, there is room for legitimate deviation. For example, today I gave one our brother priests permission to celebrate the EF. I also gave permission for the laity to be invited to our chapel, because of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross and the Stigmata of St. Francis which fall three days apart. We always try to link them, because St. Francis actually received the stigmata on the Feast of the Holy Cross, as it was then known. But you cannot celebrate two solemnities on the same day. The Solemnity of the Stigmata always falls on Sep 17.
I don’t like fiddleback chasubles. I have never allowed them to be worn in our chapel. The brother wears a Gothic chasuble. St. Clare banned Gregorian chant. We don’t use that either. We do chant, but it’s very different from what would hear at a Benedictine monastery where they do real Gregorian chant. We don’t have a schola, because St. Francis and St. Clare did not like the idea of a schola, because it created a distinction within those who attend the mass. They only allowed for those distinctions that were absolutely necessary for the valid and licit celebration of the mass.
In our mind, when one speaks of a traditional mass, this is what we imagine. It’s a mass in Latin, without prayers at the foot of the altar, without Gregorian chant, where the Epistle and Gospel are always read in the language of the community of religious and where the male religious superior presides in choir, even if he’s not a priest, because he’s the successor of St. Francis. If it’s a female religious superior, she may preside in choir during the mass, if she’s a canonical abbess.
I bring up these examples, because I am truly convinced that more people argue and get upset because the words have different meanings to them. Sometimes the terms are politically charged. At the mass this Sunday, not of the Traditionalists who attended were surprised, shocked, nor did they feel that the mass was hijacked, because there were some differences between that mass and the Tridentine mass celebrated by a priest of the FSSP. I don’t know how much they even noticed that there were no prayers at the foot of the altar or that there were no readings in Latin. They must have noted that there were parts of the mass chanted in Latin by the choir, but they did not use Gregorian chant and the congregation was invited to join the brothers in responding, because that’s what we do. We have never just sat there like knots in the wood. It’s not part of “tradition” as we know it. A low mass is very quiet, but there is some participation by the brothers. A high mass is very interactive.
We would never say that we’re liberal either. We use the mass that was used by Franciscans in 1962 as well as that which was approved by Pope Paul VI. Liberal and conservative are very political. I think that as long as we bring those words into our discussions on liturgy, we run the risk of creating political camps. Traditionalist and orthodox are silly. They are not antonyms. I understand how the average layman understands those words, but they’re being used incorrectly. They have acquired another meaning. At times, those meanings divide rather than unite, because they can be offensive.
My suggestion is accept that there is a liturgical tradition that starts with the Apostles and comes forward to Pope Francis. There is diversity in this liturgical tradition. Within each of the 23 Catholic Churches there are different rites. Within the rites there are variations in the form. All of these are legitimate, if they are done as they were intended. Maybe it’s better to describe rather than label.
I’ll shut up now and go sit =======>
I’m getting very tired.
Having said this, I think that much of the debate about the OF and the EF is taking place because people don’t really understand one form of the mass or the other. In some cases, people don’t understand either form of the mass. Just look at how incorrectly people use the term rite. I’ve even heard religious and clergymen refer to the Tridentine Rite. There is no such thing. There is a Roman Rite with two forms. There are several Latin Rites and those often have different forms according to local customs. For example, the Dominican Rite is a Latin Rite. It is not the Roman mass. When it was used more, there were slight variations from one province to another, because of culture.
This leads me to another point that I find to be very important. That is that there has never been a call for “indistinguishability” in the Latin Church. I’d like to offer an example, and then I’ll sit down and be quiet. In our community the EF cannot be celebrated unless the major superior grants permission. The constitution is very clear on this. The Rule of St. Francis is very clear that if there is more than one priest in a house, only one can celebrate mass. The other joins the congregation. In the case of a parish, this is not the case, because you have several masses. The case is that the superior decides when the EF is celebrated, because *Summorum Pontificum *says that religious must look to the major superior and proper law. Contrary to public opinion, a priest who is a religious cannot celebrate the EF whenever and where ever he wants to do so. I’m not sure how people concluded this.
In this area, there is room for legitimate deviation. For example, today I gave one our brother priests permission to celebrate the EF. I also gave permission for the laity to be invited to our chapel, because of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross and the Stigmata of St. Francis which fall three days apart. We always try to link them, because St. Francis actually received the stigmata on the Feast of the Holy Cross, as it was then known. But you cannot celebrate two solemnities on the same day. The Solemnity of the Stigmata always falls on Sep 17.
I don’t like fiddleback chasubles. I have never allowed them to be worn in our chapel. The brother wears a Gothic chasuble. St. Clare banned Gregorian chant. We don’t use that either. We do chant, but it’s very different from what would hear at a Benedictine monastery where they do real Gregorian chant. We don’t have a schola, because St. Francis and St. Clare did not like the idea of a schola, because it created a distinction within those who attend the mass. They only allowed for those distinctions that were absolutely necessary for the valid and licit celebration of the mass.
In our mind, when one speaks of a traditional mass, this is what we imagine. It’s a mass in Latin, without prayers at the foot of the altar, without Gregorian chant, where the Epistle and Gospel are always read in the language of the community of religious and where the male religious superior presides in choir, even if he’s not a priest, because he’s the successor of St. Francis. If it’s a female religious superior, she may preside in choir during the mass, if she’s a canonical abbess.
I bring up these examples, because I am truly convinced that more people argue and get upset because the words have different meanings to them. Sometimes the terms are politically charged. At the mass this Sunday, not of the Traditionalists who attended were surprised, shocked, nor did they feel that the mass was hijacked, because there were some differences between that mass and the Tridentine mass celebrated by a priest of the FSSP. I don’t know how much they even noticed that there were no prayers at the foot of the altar or that there were no readings in Latin. They must have noted that there were parts of the mass chanted in Latin by the choir, but they did not use Gregorian chant and the congregation was invited to join the brothers in responding, because that’s what we do. We have never just sat there like knots in the wood. It’s not part of “tradition” as we know it. A low mass is very quiet, but there is some participation by the brothers. A high mass is very interactive.
We would never say that we’re liberal either. We use the mass that was used by Franciscans in 1962 as well as that which was approved by Pope Paul VI. Liberal and conservative are very political. I think that as long as we bring those words into our discussions on liturgy, we run the risk of creating political camps. Traditionalist and orthodox are silly. They are not antonyms. I understand how the average layman understands those words, but they’re being used incorrectly. They have acquired another meaning. At times, those meanings divide rather than unite, because they can be offensive.
My suggestion is accept that there is a liturgical tradition that starts with the Apostles and comes forward to Pope Francis. There is diversity in this liturgical tradition. Within each of the 23 Catholic Churches there are different rites. Within the rites there are variations in the form. All of these are legitimate, if they are done as they were intended. Maybe it’s better to describe rather than label.
I’ll shut up now and go sit =======>
I’m getting very tired.
P
ProVobis
Guest
That’s interesting. I guess many of us didn’t know that the reforms were already well under way in the 50’s, much less 200 years ago.
Thanks for the link.
P
pianistclare
Guest
thank you so much.
Many prayers for you and the children.
Clare
Many prayers for you and the children.
Clare
J
Jack007
Guest
me too
C
Cat
Guest
JR Education,
Thank you so much for your service and for taking the time and expending your energy and strength to write your post. You have blessed and helped many of us with this post and others.
Thank you so much for your service and for taking the time and expending your energy and strength to write your post. You have blessed and helped many of us with this post and others.
C
Cat
Guest
And thank you for this, too. So interesting and helpful.
O
OraLabora
Guest
The first Masses celebrated facing the people (other than where the layout meant that facing the people and east was the same direction) were at the Benedictine abbey of Sant’Anselmo in Rome with approval of the Vatican, in the 1940’s.
It was done on an experimental basis in the context of studying reforms of the liturgy under Pius XII, who in fact appointed Annibale Bugnini to a commission with that mission in the 40’s.
I don’t have any sources to back up the role of the abbey, I learned it on a tour of it last fall. It is the primatial abbey and teaching college of the Benedictine order.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Yet, one who is familiar with the 1962 Missal could still easily recognize a 1570 Missal in its Latin form.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I once attended a Lutheran memorial service for my departed niece and found it more similar to an English Mass than a Spanish one, for example, but then we have our own experiences in this regard.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Correct. It is my understanding too that the Missal of 1962 was supposed to have been a culmination of those efforts as seen by St. John XXIII, who terminated that commission.
- Status