Hybrid Mass

[JReducation]

I would be happy with a mass that used reverent english, like the anglican rite uses. They don’t say “you”, it’s thee and thou.

This is the Catholic Anglican rite, or usage.

Many people have no or little understanding of Latin, and no small children do.

And since the stroke my own Latin is pretty much gone.

The pronouns “thee, thou, thine, you and yours” don’t make the prayers lessor more reverent. Those are part of very specific language usages directly related to culture. Thee, thou and thine were once part of common English language, but they were never part of post Columbian English. Spanish has a similar issue. Old Spanish has “vos, vosotros, and vuestro” while modern Spanish uses “tu, ustedes, and sus” The difference between the Spanish and the English is that some Hispanic countries still use the old pronouns. In Spanish we have four missals, for the four major Spanish speaking countries: Spain, Venezuela, Mexico and the United States.

Yes, believe it or not, the Vatican classifies the United States as a bilingual nation and requires that all Catholic material for the USA be in American English and American Spanish.

Have a blessed New Year!

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV :christmastree1:

 

[centurionguard]

I guess sometime I wonder why the Church never standardized the highest educational form of English language grammer usage in the Church.

U.K. University Oxford English Grammer still tops all other written and spoken form English grammer in the world from an educational standard. With so much English slang and interpretation differential where English that is spoken from country to country some meaning to grammer invaribly gets lost.

 

[superamazingman]

It is not a mere rumor. This is the clear intent of some important figures in the Vatican, including the Holy Father.

Pope’s ‘reform of the reform’ in liturgy to continue

However, I think we should not feel so anxious about any kind of a “Frankenstein rite” being born in our lifetime. I think Holy Church takes the long view on this, and that the mutual enrichment will happen on the order of decades or centuries. I would hope and pray that Holy Church is now wary of more “rupture” being perpetrated and causing more division and loss of faith. I trust that Holy Church will proceed wisely and in baby steps from this point forward.

That being said, I would love to see “traditional options” introduced for the OF. How great it would be to “trick out” an OF Mass so that it closely resembled an EF! See Windmill’s post above for examples. The OF is known for its many options. Why not a few more that would appeal to those seeking a connection to tradition and mutual enrichment?

so true! With all the OF options, why not add a few more, like, say, kneeling for the penitential rite or the part of the creed?

 

[YoungTradCath]

All the article said is what everyone knows. The Holy Father has said many times that the end should be a blend of the two forms. He has never publicly said, “Let’s start this week.”

This is not the same article I read. The one I read was on a traditionalist site and it was not too complimentary of the idea. Some of the comments in my list are my responses to their dreams such as “mandatory Gregorian chant for everyone”. We never had that to begin with.

Another comment on their site was the uniform mass for the entire Latin Church, no exceptions. We have never had that in the Latin Church, either. The Latin Church has several rites, of which the Roman Rite is one of them. And there have always been many forms of the Roman Rite.

People were less mobile and there was no internet; therefore, people didn’t know that there was a form other than what they saw at their parish. This does not mean that it did not exist. If you lived in a parish run by Dominicans, you did not have the Roman Rite. You had the Dominican Rite. Those who lived in a parish run by Franciscans had the Franciscan form of the Roman Rite. While those who lived in a parish run by diocesan priests, had the Tridentine Form of the Roman Rite. Those who lived in Toledo (Spain not Ohio) had the Mozarabic Rite and so forth.

I find it stunning that with all of the access to information that we have today, people are actually less informed. When people speak of the mass, they speak as if there is A SINGLE LATIN RITE and A SINGLE FORM of that rite. There never was such uniformity. I don’t understand why people are calling for it now.

If we want to return to “the good old days,” then let’s go back to multiple Latin rites, including the multiple forms of the Roman Rite or we can go forward to a blend of the Tridentine Form and the Ordinary Form, leaving everyone else in peace.

In case there is someone out there who does not understand what I’m talking about, the Latin Church has several rites of which the Roman Rite is the most common. These Latin Rites are not the same at the Eastern Rites.

Have a blessed new year everyone!

Br. JR, FFV

Yes, it is a little silly sometimes. I, for one, would not mind seeing a resurrection of the various Latin Rites. In fact I would be elated! What I wouldn’t give to live in Milan: have the EF of the Ambrosian, drive a few miles and have the EF of the Roman.

 

[PacoG]

But there is a Hybrid Mass…it existed before OF was promulgated.

The 1965 Missal had the elegance of 1962 Missal and the participation of the OF…The English translation was wonderful.

Have a look at it here…

Perhaps if we want a Mass that unites all English speakers (those who prefer the OF and those who love the EF), we should ask Rome to give the English speaking world an indult for the 1965 Missal to be included in Roman Missal. Have all three Masses side by side by side.

The 1965 Missal with the current Lectionary would be an awesome choice.

 

[JM3]

It would seem that whenever there is a change to the Mass, there will be some who do not agree with it.

newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm

Further, we neither have said nor now say the Kyrie Eleison, as it is said by the Greeks: for among the Greeks all say it together; but with us it is said by the clerks, and responded to by the people; and as often as it is said, Christe Eleison is said also, which is not said at all among the Greeks. Further, in daily masses we suppress some things that are usually said, and say only Kyrie Eleison, Christe Eleison, so as to devote ourselves a little longer to these words of deprecation. But the Lord’s prayer (orationem Dominicam) we say immediately after the prayer (mox post precem) for this reason, that it was the custom of the apostles to consecrate the host of oblation to (ad) that same prayer only. And it seemed to me very unsuitable that we should say over the oblation a prayer which a scholastic had composed, and should not say the very prayer which our Redeemer composed over His body and blood.

 

[sw85]

So I guess it’s reasonable to suppose that the Holy Father said something to the effect that the two rites will be allowed to organically develop alongside one another with an eye toward their future combination into a single, common rite, which was immediately taken as proof that something was in the works right now. In much the same way that people took the Holy Father’s airy theological musings about the moral culpability of contraception use in Africa among prostitutes as proof-positive that condom use was now A-OK.

Still though, the idea’s interesting. Fr. Z. had a blog post a while ago about how the two forms of the Mass were enriching one another: the EF was inducing priests who celebrate it to also celebrate the OF with greater reverency, while the OF was likewise inducing priests to celebrate the EF with a bit more of a sense of liturgical freedom. He suspected the result would draw the OF more closely toward the EF than the other way around, citing as an example his tendency to make reverential gestures called for in the EF (kissing the altar, genuflecting, etc.) that weren’t called for in the OF.

So perhaps the intention really is to find the mean where the gravitation pull between the two forms balances out, and then make that the norm.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

So I guess it’s reasonable to suppose that the Holy Father said something to the effect that the two rites will be allowed to organically develop alongside one another with an eye toward their future combination into a single, common rite, which was immediately taken as proof that something was in the works right now. In much the same way that people took the Holy Father’s airy theological musings about the moral culpability of contraception use in Africa among prostitutes as proof-positive that condom use was now A-OK.

Still though, the idea’s interesting. Fr. Z. had a blog post a while ago about how the two forms of the Mass were enriching one another: the EF was inducing priests who celebrate it to also celebrate the OF with greater reverency, while the OF was likewise inducing priests to celebrate the EF with a bit more of a sense of liturgical freedom. He suspected the result would draw the OF more closely toward the EF than the other way around, citing as an example **his tendency to make reverential gestures called for in the EF (kissing the altar, genuflecting, etc.) that weren’t called for in the OF. **

So perhaps the intention really is to find the mean where the gravitation pull between the two forms balances out, and then make that the norm.

Not sure where Fr Z’s been (out to sea? ) but reverencing the altar and genuflecting at the consecration are in the rubrics for the OF. He’s not just being especially flowery when he does those things - he’s just saying the black and doing the red.

 

[sw85]

They are, but they are called for far more frequently in the EF.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Not sure where Fr Z’s been (out to sea? ) but reverencing the altar and genuflecting at the consecration are in the rubrics for the OF. He’s not just being especially flowery when he does those things - he’s just saying the black and doing the red.

Two kisses are prescribed in the OF: beginning and end of Mass. In the EF, many more are prescribed; each time the priest turns to face the people to say something, he kisses the altar before as a sign of self-deprecation.

Genuflections are prescribed in the OF after each of the major elevations, while in the EF they are prescribed both before and after each of the major elevations. They are also prescribed each time anyone passes the tabernacle.

 

[Saints_Alive]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

What part of “nothing” don’t you understand ?

 

[JReducation]

So I guess it’s reasonable to suppose that the Holy Father said something to the effect that the two rites will be allowed to organically develop alongside one another with an eye toward their future combination into a single, common rite, which was immediately taken as proof that something was in the works right now. In much the same way that people took the Holy Father’s airy theological musings about the moral culpability of contraception use in Africa among prostitutes as proof-positive that condom use was now A-OK.

The reds are mine. Both sets of wording terribly misrepresent the Holy Father. You may want to check this out.

First, the EF and OF are not two rite. He has said so himself multiple times. They are two forms of one rite, the Roman Rite. This is not unusual. There are over 30 forms of the Roman Rite. Just because many laymen never heard the term “form” used too often does not mean that it has not existed. It dates back to Innocent III, maybe earlier.

Second, the Holy Father was neither airy nor musing in his statement on the use of condoms by male prostitutes, nor was his speaking of using the condom for the purpose of contraception. His statement was very clear. He said that such a choice could represent a turn toward a more mature and responsible sexual morality. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that statement or the wording. This wording is not new. It dates back probably to St. Lawrence of Port Maurice who wrote to the friars that there are steps that indicate that a person is turning in the proper moral direction, even when these steps themselves are not fully aligned with moral law, the fact that they reflect a process of conversion, even an unconscious step, is a positive. The problem with the “airy musings” as you call it, is that the Holy Father was speaking to a reporter in an interview. He had 6 hours to go through a long series of questions. He was being very concise. We have to admit that conciseness does not work well for Pope Benedict. It has never worked. He does not know how to hit the nail on the head in less than 500 words. The statement was neither airy nor a musing. It was not precise enough so that the least educated in moral theology and moral tradition could understand it.

Still though, the idea’s interesting. Fr. Z. had a blog post a while ago about how the two forms of the Mass were enriching one another: the EF was inducing priests who celebrate it to also celebrate the OF with greater reverency, while the OF was likewise inducing priests to celebrate the EF with a bit more of a sense of liturgical freedom. He suspected the result would draw the OF more closely toward the EF than the other way around, citing as an example his tendency to make reverential gestures called for in the EF (kissing the altar, genuflecting, etc.) that weren’t called for in the OF.

each of the major elevations, while in the EF they are prescribed both before and after each of the major elevations. They are also prescribed each time anyone passes the tabernacle.

The genuflections when you pass the tabernacle are still prescribed. What was taken away was the moral culpability and also if one is passing the tabernacle during the mass and immediately after receiving Holy Communion.

The veneration of the altar, while it may be uplifting, is not essential to the mass. We have to be careful not to make essential what is uplifting. They’re not the same, even though both may be very beneficial.

I’m always afraid that we tend to make that which is uplifting a requirement, when there is no theological or pastoral law that says so.

 

[JReducation]

Going back to the idea of unifying the Tridentine form and the form of Paul VI into one, I don’t think a hybrid is what the Holy Father has in mind. I think he envisions a rebirth of the Roman Rite.

Think of this. The Dominican Rite has many elements of the Roman Rite, but it is not the Roman Rite, nor is it a hybrid of Dominican and Roman. It’s it’s own reality. What if, over time the two forms edified each other and the Church took the best out of each to create a new Roman Rite? It would be like the Dominican Rite. You would see elements from the one, but those elements would flow harmoniously with the rest. There may even be new elements added that come from neither the current EF and OF. We don’t know.

All I know is that this is going to take time. I can’t see the Holy See rushing into this as rumor has it. First of all, it’s not a top priority right now. Second, we know what happened before when changes were quick and time was short. Third, have to let the novelty of the EF settle. We don’t know if the large numbers of people attending the EF are going to remain high or if there is an element of a) novelty and b) rebellion against the OF. A and B have to die out so that we can get a real sense of how the two forms truly affect the person who consistently attends one or the other.

We also don’t know how many diocesan priests will want to celebrate the EF. Even though the laity has the right to have the EF, the priest does not have the obligation to celebrate it and no one can force him to do so.

We don’t know how many religious superiors are going to allow their priests to celebrate the EF. Regular priests do not have carte blanche to celebrate the EF. It depends solely on their superior. Many of us are being very cautious, because we have to protect our communities. In some of our communities, the EF is not desired. The first obligation of the superior is the unity of his community, then the service to the outside world. We can’t drag our communities to theat EF kicking and screaming. We learned the hard way when the Mass of Paul VI was introduced too quickly on religious. There was a backlash. The only thing that superiors could do was to dismiss men and agree to apply to the Holy Father to dispense others upon request. Superiors had their hands tied. They could not refuse Rome and they could not accommodate to their men. In addition, we know that some religious communities are deliberately ordaining less men, because they have a surplus of priests.

We have to wait to see how the numbers of the faithful level out and how the number of the priests available to celebrate the EF levels out. This is going to take time. To do this right, we have to proceed slowly and diplomatically.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[YoungTradCath]

I have a feeling we will be in a generally OF-EF situation for at least another half century. I feel that we are in a period of renormalization right now, perhaps transitioning into the beginning phases of self-assessment. Thanks Br. JR.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

How close would the 1965 Missal be to a hybrid mass?

 

[superamazingman]

How close would the 1965 Missal be to a hybrid mass?

I would imagine it could be not far off from the 1965 missal in that many of the normal “EF things” were optional. It would probably have some of the newer stuff added as well.

 

[JReducation]

I have a feeling we will be in a generally OF-EF situation for at least another half century. I feel that we are in a period of renormalization right now, perhaps transitioning into the beginning phases of self-assessment. Thanks Br. JR.

I believe that the term “renormalization” is a good one. Before we move further, I hope that this Holy Father or the next one will get some help from Canon Lawyers. In this regard, Ven Paul VI had an advantage over Pope Benedict. Pope Paul was a lawyer. He knew how to navigate the law. Pope Benedict is not a lawyer. Knowing the law and thinking like a lawyer is not the same thing.

Here is the problem that has to be addressed before we move forward. We have statements coming out of the Vatican that say that the faithful have a right to the Extraordinary Form… I have no problems with that.

We also have documents and memos coming out of the Vatican to bishops that prohibit them from forcing diocesan priests to celebrate the EF and prohibit the disruption of parish life to insert the EF. In other words, you can’t insert an EF mass in a parish for 50 and displace 500 who would attend the OF at that time. This actually makes sense.

Then there are responses to major superiors of men. No regular priest may celebrate the EF in public without the permission of his superior. No superior can command any priest to celebrate the EF, unless the community is an Ecclesia Dei community or the decision is made by the General Chapter.

So what do we have?

We have one statement that says that the laity has a right to the EF and another that says that priests don’t have to provide the EF and that religious superiors of priests can even deny the EF, even if the priest wants to celebrate it.

It’s very hard to secure anyone’s rights when you the provider does not have any obligation to provide. That’s like our current healthcare system. We all have a right to healthcare, but doctors don’t have an obligation to provide it unless we have insurance. One person’s rights assume another person’s duty.

If the priest has the right to decline, if the bishop has the right to say that the introduction of an EF mass at a parish will be disruptive to the parish and that there is no free priest to celebrate an additional mass, and if the religious superior or the religious community has the right to deny the permission to celebrate the EF for the lay faithful. then lay faithful must respect those rights and accept a negative response when they ask for the EF.

In that case, better wording would be that the lay faithful have a right to request it, not a right to get it and every diocesan priest has a right to celebrate it, as long as he does not sacrifice the parish.

or

The lay faithful have the right to request it and the local parish priest must provide it if the following conditions are met, then spell out the conditions.

How close would the 1965 Missal be to a hybrid mass?

People call it a hybrid mass, but it’s not. I have read the documents that flowed out of the Vatican in 1965. Ven. Paul VI’s plan was to move toward the form as we know it today. It was really a transitional form. He had no intentions of leaving the 1965 missal as the permanent missal. Even when he died, he was not finished. Bl. John Paul II continued to work on the missal and issued more changes. The changes are not complete. Pope Benedict is still working on them. The end product is supposed to be a very austere form of the mass with many of the traditional elements, but less of the choreography, simpler gestures and prayers in a language that people can understand. I’m not speaking about English, Swahili or Latin. It should have room for options with different Eucharistic prayers and different gestures, many borrowed from religious houses and gradually introduced to the laity. It should have more opportunity for the dialogue between the laity and the presider.

My guess is that the final version, if we ever get there, will look very much like the Franciscan form that you see on EWTN. Observe that there are less bells and whistles: less incense, no Gregorian chant, simpler vestments, not a great deal of movement around the sanctuary, a lot more Latin than you would find in another setting, but the faithful engage in the dialogue in Latin and English. The friar always faces the faithful, even if he turns around, then he’s facing the choir stalls. The setting of the altar is much more traditional with the seven candles and the crucifix. However, the friar does have his back turned to the tabernacle the whole time. The focus is on the altar, not the tabernacle. The friar sits to the side of the sanctuary so as not to stand out too much. The role of the priest is preserved but he’s not apart from the laity by sitting in a place of honor, nor is he separated by railings.

You will also notice the use of men more than women. Though there is nothing in the Franciscan rules that women cannot do the readings. In that house, since they have about 16 friars, it’s not necessary to involve the laity in the readings at all.

In my mind, everything that I have heard and read it sounds like what we Franciscans already have. The difference is that we have the option of using either the Roman Missal, which is the same as most of you see in your parishes and celebrating mass as you see it in your parishes or the option of using the Roman-Franciscan Missal and celebrating mass as you see it on EWTN. If my guess is right, the end product that Pope Paul had in mind would be more like the Franciscans. In that case, it would eliminate the option of two missals.

I’m just guessing.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[O_Moriah]

The English-speaking practitioners of the OF just accepted, rather grudgingly, a wholesale revamp of the translation of the Mass.

But does anyone really think that those who are practitioners of the EF would accept any revisions of that form leading toward a hybrid? E.g., let’s say the Pope made a decision that the EF form could be celebrated with the priest facing the people as the one and only revision to that form. Does anyone think that that would be embraced? Does anyone think we would not see posts in the forum, “I attended a so-called EF Mass where the priest was facing the people and I hated it. Does anyone know where in my city I can find a real EF Mass?”

 

[JReducation]

The English-speaking practitioners of the OF just accepted, rather grudgingly, a wholesale revamp of the translation of the Mass.

But does anyone really think that those who are practitioners of the EF would accept any revisions of that form leading toward a hybrid? E.g., let’s say the Pope made a decision that the EF form could be celebrated with the priest facing the people as the one and only revision to that form. Does anyone think that that would be embraced? Does anyone think we would not see posts in the forum, “I attended a so-called EF Mass where the priest was facing the people and I hated it. Does anyone know where in my city I can find a real EF Mass?”

There has never been and never will be a way to please the Catholic laity. Therefore, the Church does not try to do so. She listens like a good mother. In the end, like every good mother, she does what she thinks is better for the moment or for the future. Her children just have to live with it or there is the door.

It’s time that the Catholic faithful stop thinking like Protestant Americans. They do not own the Church. They have no legal vote in Church matters. They have a right to make their voices heard, but they do not have a right to have their wishes granted, because it’s humanly impossible to please everyone. They always have the freedom to leave the Church. The Church is a hospital for the sick, not a prison for the malcontent.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[ProVobis]

My personal feel is that bi-lingual Masses will be more the hybrid. Since most wouldn’t know the difference between a Latin OF and an EF and since most of the differences are silent prayers, the form will be less emphasized. For example, my pastor (as many other pastors) just list(s) the Masses as Spanish, English, and Latin. On special occasions the Mass is advertised as Spanish-English. And the Latin Mass will be the Latin Mass or Latin-English or Latin with an English sermon. Most parishioners don’t distinguish between forms; language is the big difference to them.

In any case, I would hate to see a re-enactment of the 60’s as far as what happened to the 62 Missal, which is what the rumors are all about IMO.