If you could, what changes if any would you make to the Ordinary Form?

  • Thread starter Thread starter giuseppe96
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I disagree with adding more feasts. Before the council there were so many feasts that the notion of “feast” lost its meaning. The ferial office is a sort of metronome marking time and against which to contrast feasts, which should be a special occasion, not a normal occurrence. I realize that this means omitting some saints, but regional calendars are the answer to that.

We have to remember that the Liturgy isn’t only he Mass, it is also the Office. One reality of the pre-conciliar Office is that the notion of the entire 150 psalms being recited in a week was entirely fictional. The reality was that the festival Office was used so often, it took far more than a week to do all 150 psalms. How can something be special if it happens several times a week?

The post-Vatican II reforms of the Office has a more balanced view. Memorials mostly use the Ferial psalms, and on most memorials with out proper antiphons and hymns, it is permissible to use almost everything from the Ferial Office except the collect; feasts are more special, and occur less frequently, and solemnities even less frequently. Some complain that it takes 4 weeks to go through the psalter but in reality, in the pre-conciliar Office it took longer than a week.

If one adds too many feasts, then it will take far more than 4 weeks to go through the LOTH’s psalter. And no, going back to a 150 psalm per week psalter is not the answer for today’s stretched-out diocesan priests, who increasingly work solo in parishes.
 
Yikes …

I would make all catholic clergy and Catholic higher ed take an oath of allegiance expressing their support for the Ordinary form of the Mass and the teachings of the Second Vatican Council as expressed by Pope Benedict and now Pope Francis… can’t be part Catholic
 
godisgood77 said:
oath of allegiance expressing their support for the Ordinary form of the Mass
Click to expand...
That can be a bit vague. What would you define as support? I support the OF as a valid amd licit form of the Mass, but frankly, I prefer the EF over it. My preference could be viewed as acceptable to some, and not acceptable to others, depending on how support is interpreted.
 
Last edited:
Are you saying the the OF Mass and the Second Vatican Council are “non-binding” teachings?

And how, exactly, do you “set aside” Canon 752?

I am very confused as to what you are trying to say here.
 
Can. 249 The program of priestly formation is to provide that students not only are carefully taught their native language but also understand Latin well and have a suitable understanding of those foreign languages which seem necessary or useful for their formation or for the exercise of pastoral ministry.

The Canon says “understand Latin well”, not “well-versed”.

I have a friend who graduated from Seminary and was ordained in 2005. He took a “Latin proficiency” exam and was able to not have to take any Latin at all. Most of his classmates were the same.

I can stumble through the Mass parts, if I have to, in Latin, but it might as well be Klingon to me.

For all those who want priests to be “well versed” in Latin, what study would you like them to give up?
 
CilladeRoma said:
The Canon says “understand Latin well”, not “well-versed”.
Click to expand...
Actually, the canon is written in Latin- so it doesn’t say either of those things.

I think someone who is actually well-versed in Latin should be queried as to what exactly the writers of the canon meant by “understand Latin well”.
 
I want to finish every mass with the opening of the Gospel of John: an awesome summary of creation and salvation history, with a really positive message: the light shines in the darkness. I want to leave on that note instead of destroying the atmosphere with a bad joke, some notices and a long list of everybody who deserves our thanks - and I swear as I get older the list gets longer as the church gets more empty. I’m pretty sure at the last diocesan mass I went to the bishop thanked more people than were in the church. But hey ho
 
Would you also want priests to learn to say the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and take an oath to all of Catholic teaching, including the Extraordinary form of the Mass?
 
This is not true… the extraordinary form of the mass is not part of the deposit of faith… The deposit of faith is that which was given by Jesus Christ to the apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition. The extraordinary form of the mass did not exist during the time of the apostles… this is abundantly clear. It is a small ‘t’ tradition and was created over time in memory of the last supper with Jesus… in other words, it is a discipline of the Church, as is the ordinary form which was implemented across the entire universal Catholic Church.
 
The changes I would want would be a more reverent, respectful Mass, no more songs from the 1970’s but instead singing more of the Mass or some or more Catholic hymns. I would stop the clapping for altar servers, piano players and stop clapping for announcements which do not need to be in the Mass anyway as someone else said, no more hand raising during the Our Father and stop the “and with your spirit” hand push.

Replace these things with ad orientum Mass, just a few minutes of quiet time after Communion, instead of singing. This would allow parishioners time to thank God for the sacrifice they just received.
 
Last edited:
Well Summorum Pontificum called for priests to pray the EF where there is demand from the faithful. So I wouldn’t call for an oath of allegiance to that as it is not a requirement of a priest.

I would call for a pledge of allegiance to all Church teaching…However the EF isn’t Church teaching… it is a discipline of the Church. You may say the OF is also a disciple of the Church so why is that different? It’s different because guys like Lefevbre were excommunicated for their rejection of the Church over it and have caused borderline schism by creating a sort of parallel magisterium over it - along with Church teaching on Ecumenism and Sources of Revelation.
 
Yes, the essence of the Mass is something that Jesus gave… so part of the Deposit of Faith. That same essence is contained in the Ordinary Form of the Mass, just as well as they are in the EF. I understand that you may have a preference for one form over the other… but stating that one is better, truer or more Catholic than another is wrong and not what the Church teaches.

This is not what happened … the Liturgical Movement of the late 19 century eventually netted the OF… the dialogue Mass of the 1920’s, the Easter reform under Pius XII and the OF implemented by soon to be St Paul VI all represent the organic development that has always happened in the Church. Many would like to claim that the OF was just created in 1968… which is just not true… it was the product of decades of study and work

As is rejecting or discrediting the OF …thick irony in this post
 
Last edited:
As has already been discusssed… this is not true.

I agree about your preferences… my are inconsequential as well. Your speaking for God’s preferences is bold… (and a little outlandish)

It fits just fine as it was not arbitrary… as stated in a previous post… the Ordinary Form is the Mass of the Catholic Church is the product of decades of work, study, prayer and the Holy Spirits’s influence…the same way the living Church has always worked. The EF that you are rederencing is one of many different iterations. It was put in place during Pius V papacy.

i’m a sorry that you don’t like the Ordinary Form of the Mass
 
Last edited:
No, I’m saying anything derogatory about the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. Are you saying that the Ordinary Form is not pleasing to God?

Nope. The essence of the Mass - which is manifested in the OF and the EF - is given by God. The form which it is represented is not.

I call it what the Church calls it… I don’t pretend to know better than the Church.
 
Agreed … I’ll say a prayer for you at Mass tomorrow morning … Pax
 
We thank God for the Sacrifice we have just received through singing a hymn.

As we sing, we also remember that after the Last Supper (Passover), Jesus and His disciples sang a hymn before they left–the disciples to fall asleep, and Jesus to His Agony in the Garden, trial, and death on the Cross.

If someone wishes to be quiet after Holy Communion, they can be quiet.
 
Here are the changes I would like to be made to the OF of the Mass:
  1. I would like the bishops to decide on clear and uniform rubrics/posture on how the Mass is to be celebrated in each country and not have individual bishops make decisions on the proper rubrics/posture on a diocese-by-diocese basis.
  2. Mass in the Ordinary Form (OF) should only be celebrated in the vernacular in its entirety with no part of it in Latin. The point of this is that the Ordinary Form was supposedly designed to make the laity an active participant of the Mass and the simple fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the laity has only an extremely limited grasp of the Latin language. Using Latin in the Ordinary Form of Mass goes against one the main reasons why the Mass was revised after Vatican II. Two exceptions where celebrating the Ordinary Form of the Mass in Latin would be acceptable, would be at Papal Masses and Masses celebrated by religious orders in their communities where the study of Latin is encourage if not required.
  1. Outside of Papal Masses and religious communities, if a priest wants to celebrate a Mass in Latin, then he’ll need to use the Extraordinary Form (EF) of the Mass, the form of the Mass that is meant to be celebrated in Latin, and not try add Latin to the Ordinary Form of the Mass.
🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top