First Impressions on the Extraordinary Form

  • Thread starter Thread starter runningdude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

runningdude

Guest
I’m writing this thread as follow up to my previous post describing my experience growing up with the Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite, and not knowing that there was a more ancient form, today’s Extraordinary Form, that preceded it. I encourage you to please read my impressions about the Ordinary Form first, to understand my perspective going into the Extraordinary Form. For posters on my previous post, welcome back!

Here is the link to my previous post: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=500363

In my last post, I talked about how I grew up with a very reverently celebrated Ordinary Form, yet after reading many of the posts about the Extraordinary Form, started developing a burning desire to experience the reverence of the Extraordinary Form of the Latin Rite for myself. Today I’d like to share my impressions about my first traditional mass, which I attended yesterday at the parish designated by the diocese to host the Eclessia Dei ministry.

I’ve been preparing directly or indirectly for several months to visit the ancient Latin Mass. I’d read the English translation of the missal, studied the Latin text as best I could. I’d read about its history, and dates of its major and minor revisions. About the controversies and “suppressions” of other not-quite-so-ancient liturgies. I’d even attended reverently held Ordinary Form masses in Haitian Creole (a language that borrows from French and African dialects), as well as a mass in Spanish, so that the language barrier would be less of a shock.

The day I went was an immaculately beautiful fall day. I missed a turn on the way driving to the mass, and found myself on a gorgeous country back road. I arrived at the church and panicked, because the parking lot was empty! Fortunately there turned out to be a few cars parked in the back, so I hadn’t missed the mass, but it was sad that there were so few in attendance. Luckily I was just 10 minutes early, and more came.

I estimate the church was built in the fifties. I’d seen it before from the outside and didn’t think much of it. Entering though, it was clearly set up for the Extraordinary form. I can’t tell if it was a recent renovation to restore it from a past mauling in the “Spirit of Vatican II”, or if it was the original alter, but I thought it was appropriate. As I was early, it was a fitting environment to pray and reflect on the meaning of the mass.

It wasn’t a particularly grand, but clearly Catholic, with an alter set up for the priest to lead the the parish, the Tabernacle placed in the “seat” of honor in at the back of the sanctuary, complete with shroud, and a true crucifix, and tasteful imagery and icons. The cathedra was placed to the side, though I don’t believe the priest ever actually sat down!

This was a low mass, much to my disappointment, so the priest did not chant the mass, and there was no choir. The parish provided English-Latin missals, but I couldn’t hear well enough to follow along, so I just listened to get a feel for the liturgy. Parts of it did feel familiar. I recognized parts of the Gloria, and the Kyrie Leison, but I was at much of a loss for what was going on until the Epistle and Gospel were read.

These too felt familiar, as well as the homily, but between Gospel and Homily, there were prayers in English, that I wasn’t expecting. Following the Gospel, I figure out the creed was being recited, although I can’t remember if it was the priest and deacon/acolyte saying it, or it the congregation was also reciting it, or if they were supposed to recite it or not. The congregation also seemed to recite some of the responses, but I’m not sure if these were the deacon’s parts or not the congregation was reciting.

The moment of Consecration totally snuck up on me. Most of the prayers were recited by the priest silently, as I understood he was supposed to. But all of a sudden, I saw a wave of movement throughout the parishioners. I thought we were standing up, so I stood, then the deacons/acolytes started ringing the bells and the priest elevated the host, and I plunged to my knees! I followed enough to know when the sacred cup was elevated, but then I got lost again until the distribution, kneeling at the alter rail. Following the distribution, I got lost again.

Because I kept getting lost, honestly I walked away feeling as though I had missed out on parts of it. I missed reciting the Our Father, which if we did recite it, it was in Latin and went right over my head. Growing up in Ordinary Form of the mass, the Our Father was always a pivotal moment for me, when the congregation came together to pray in the words our Lord taught us, directly to our Lord present in the form of the consecrated the Host!

Despite getting lost in the language which I expected, and personally missing some of the elements of the ordinary form, I did have the feeling throughout that I was in the presence of something ancient and sacred. The way the priest and deacons moved, the reverent silence observed by the congregation, and knowledge that roughly these same actions have been repeated throughout the centuries was very moving to me.

continued…
 
continued…

However, and I don’t say this to challenge anyone, if the ancient form were to be ever reintroduced as the Ordinary Form, a long period of instruction would have to be included so that parishioners appreciate what they are seeing. I studied the old mass before attending, and I still got helplessly lost! We live in a time of broken catechism instruction - as the priest spoke of in part of his homily, up until recently, children were instructed that the mass is a party! If such lax instruction is true, switching gears to the ancient liturgy would totally confuse and irrate many of the faithful needlessly. I personally will have to study it more before I can fully grasp the beauty of the mystery that is the ancient liturgy.

I personally feel from a lay perspective during mass, there would be little difference experienced by attending a truly reverent mass in the Ordinary Form, or the Extraordinary Form. I am excited for the new English translation of the Roman Missal coming up, especially if Eucharistic Prayer I is used, which seems to restore a significant part of the original prayers of the ancient liturgy. Having attending the masses in Creole and Spanish, both reminiscent of the original Latin, I say this from experience. However, I acknowledge the special timeless quality of Extraordinary Form, which makes it truly extraordinary even if restored as the ordinary form!
 
Our priest, in conversation yesterday, said that there used to be a possiblity of a priest committing 232 mortal sins while celebrating the Latin Mass.

:eek:

(And that had nothing to do with the mental attitude of the priest.)

I was born in the 60’s and vaguely remember the Latin Mass. I do remember my older sisters always huffing, “I can’t understand anything they’re saying.”

My Dad’s 91, and he doesn’t remember the Latin Mass with a whole lot of fondness.

All that being said, a poster yesterday was talking about how her young priest was bringing his dog to the daily celebration of the Mass.

I’m a bit of bonehead about the sections of the Mass, but our new priest chants a section of the Mass during the Consecration, it’s absolutely beautiful and I love it.
 
The only EF Masses I’ve ever attended have all been Low Masses - I am under the impression that the congregation is not actually supposed to be able to hear what the priest is saying (he is speaking to God; not to us), which is why we are given the books to follow along with. We also are not supposed to be giving any of the responses - that is the job of the altar server or acolyte.

My personal practice is to simply remain kneeling throughout the whole Mass, and join my prayers and personal intentions to the Sacrifice of the Altar.
 
The only EF Masses I’ve ever attended have all been Low Masses - I am under the impression that the congregation is not actually supposed to be able to hear what the priest is saying (he is speaking to God; not to us), which is why we are given the books to follow along with. We also are not supposed to be giving any of the responses - that is the job of the altar server or acolyte.

My personal practice is to simply remain kneeling throughout the whole Mass, and join my prayers and personal intentions to the Sacrifice of the Altar.
I think this is one of the major concerns aired out by those who do not like the Latin Mass. Probably second only to the language barrier of Latin. I’ve never been to a Low Mass so I can’t quite comment on it. Its not untraditional for people to participate in Mass, the Eastern Liturgies have plenty of lay participation and many of them predate the Tridentine Mass. I would say its a good argument.
 
Please do not compare the Eastern and Western rites in a discussion on the Roman Rite. It confuses the issue

Thank You

Thomas Casey
Moderator
 
The only EF Masses I’ve ever attended have all been Low Masses - I am under the impression that the congregation is not actually supposed to be able to hear what the priest is saying (he is speaking to God; not to us), which is why we are given the books to follow along with. We also are not supposed to be giving any of the responses - that is the job of the altar server or acolyte.

My personal practice is to simply remain kneeling throughout the whole Mass, and join my prayers and personal intentions to the Sacrifice of the Altar.
Even before we had Mass in the vernacular, many parishes had ‘dialog Masses’ where the congregation did give the responses. It never developped in my diocese but it was the norm in many places. I thought that’s how the EF was celebrated today. Does it still vary greatly by parish or diocese?
 
The use of “dialogue Masses” does vary greatly. I’ve been going to TLM’s in my area (in the UK) for about 10 years and never experienced one.

I once asked an official of the Latin Mass Society about this and I was told “Dialogue Masses were never universally popular, they were common on continental Europe but never in the UK. After Vatican II a lot of people associated congregational responses with the Vatican II reforms and didn’t like to see them in a TLM. Also, for it to be done well in a TLM people need to be trained to do it - for example the responses are supposed to be made “in chorus”, with everybody synchronised, and if you’re not careful you end up with people out of step with each other, or somebody a lot louder than everybody else.”

So that’s the explanation I was given. Has anybody ellse had experience of dialogue Masses?
 
Both form has it’s values.

The older rite emphasizes that the Mass is the bloodless sacrifice of Jesus Christ offered by the priest for our world, and our role is to be open to the graces of this sacrifice.

The new rite emphasizes that we gather, learn, and bring our offerings; but still the bloodless sacrifice of our Lord is the essence and the real worth of the Mass.

The effect of the new rite toward the old one is, that usually the traditional mass is Missa Cantata, to bring it closer to the people.

We need regular old rites in every parish, to emphasize the required reverence toward the sacrifice of our Lord, and to prevent the masses became entirely folk-festival, as unfortunately there are in many parishes.
 
The use of “dialogue Masses” does vary greatly. I’ve been going to TLM’s in my area (in the UK) for about 10 years and never experienced one.

I once asked an official of the Latin Mass Society about this and I was told “Dialogue Masses were never universally popular, they were common on continental Europe but never in the UK. After Vatican II a lot of people associated congregational responses with the Vatican II reforms and didn’t like to see them in a TLM. Also, for it to be done well in a TLM people need to be trained to do it - for example the responses are supposed to be made “in chorus”, with everybody synchronised, and if you’re not careful you end up with people out of step with each other, or somebody a lot louder than everybody else.”

So that’s the explanation I was given. Has anybody ellse had experience of dialogue Masses?
As I’ve mention in other threads, the Missa Recitata (aka Dialogue Mass) never really caught-on in the US either. They did (and, from what I’ve heard still do) exist in this country, but were not particularly common. I’m not sure about how about Canada, but I could easily believe that it may have been a bit more popular in French-speaking areas.

In any case, the red booklet missals that are often available for the EF have a marginal note about them including how to do the responses. Usually what happens is that the servers make their responses in a louder voice than they normally would at Low Mass, and that is very helpful to the congregation to stay in sync. I never found it particularly difficult, but then again, I’m prone to making the responses at Low Mass sotto-voce anyway.
 
The use of “dialogue Masses” does vary greatly. I’ve been going to TLM’s in my area (in the UK) for about 10 years and never experienced one.

I once asked an official of the Latin Mass Society about this and I was told “Dialogue Masses were never universally popular, they were common on continental Europe but never in the UK. After Vatican II a lot of people associated congregational responses with the Vatican II reforms and didn’t like to see them in a TLM. Also, for it to be done well in a TLM people need to be trained to do it - for example the responses are supposed to be made “in chorus”, with everybody synchronised, and if you’re not careful you end up with people out of step with each other, or somebody a lot louder than everybody else.”

So that’s the explanation I was given. Has anybody ellse had experience of dialogue Masses?
I think this is perhaps all overblown a bit. For example, if I attend an Italian or a Vietnamese OF, I wouldn’t be able to make verbal responses; yet would I be participating less and is the Mass worth less? Maybe my vocal prowess is better expressed in a Latin or English Mass, but it shouldn’t mean the spiritual benefits are greater. This isn’t a matter of bragging rights of one’s talents but worship to God that’s the central issue here. And worship to God shouldn’t be measured by a decibel meter, I would think.
 
The OP and my wife share many opinions on the EF. My wife prefers the participation afforded her by the OF and has been a very active choir member for over 16 years at our parish of registration. I prefer the quiet of the EF because it allows me to gather my thoughts and gives me a sense of more reverential participation through private prayer. She never has a need to follow the Mass using a missal while I require one for a couple of reasons; I need the translations for the Proper Mass parts, it helps me to be in communion with the sequence of the Mass.

I attend both forms; the OF on special feast days when the choir is orchestrated, it’s a glorious Liturgical celebration; and when we travel, more out of necessity due to a lack of TLM availability. I attend the EF at a fairly close by FSSP chaplaincy on all other Sundays and usually a couple of week days. I am not currently registered at the TLM parish but do wonder if I can be registered at both the OF and EF parishes, maybe someone on the forum knows.

I don’t understand the reluctance to appreciate the benefits of both forms.
 
I don’t understand the reluctance to appreciate the benefits of both forms.
I do happen to like both forms - they inform each other very richly, I think, and the soul that makes use of both has an easier time staying spiritually balanced, I think - neither legalistic, nor laissez-faire.
 
I am not currently registered at the TLM parish but do wonder if I can be registered at both the OF and EF parishes, maybe someone on the forum knows.
Yes you definitely can be registered in both parishes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top