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 would use the words of the gospel of Matthew in the Vulgate (reflected in the Douay for the Our Father Matt 6:11 so that it would say as it does in the Greek “Give us this day our supersubstantial bread” rather than give us this day our daily bread, a poor translation.
Grace and peace,
Bruce
 
Sadly ,from what I have seen over the years, one of the main reasons that people change churches is “the music.”

It is the devil’s work to divide Christians over music. It is a devious, utterly evil plot. Resist it.

If there are other reasons why you are returning to Anglicanism, well, that’s a little better. But please don’t walk away because of the music.

And the organist will continue to be non-existent until someone funds one. 🙂
 
I’m late to the party and haven’t read all the responses, but here I go:
  1. Communion only on the tongue distributed by a priest or deacon.
  2. Exclusive use of penitential rite A with the full Confiteor.
  3. The Kyrie chanted in Greek, and the Sanctus and Agnus Dei always chanted in Latin.
  4. The Credo and the Gloria chanted in Latin at least occasionally.
  5. The Pater Noster prayed in Latin at least occasionally.
  6. Exclusive use of the traditional offertory prayers when the Roman Canon is used.
  7. Mandatory use of the Roman Canon at all Masses from the first Sunday of Advent through the Epiphany, and again from Ash Wednesday through Trinity Sunday (though the abbreviated form could be used on weekdays).
  8. Allowance for the use of EP IV on Sundays and Holy Days when the Canon is not required.
  9. Use of EP II and III on ordinary weekdays only when the Canon is not required.
  10. The offertory and EP prayed ad orientem.
  11. The propers at least recited at each Mass, and occasionally chanted in Latin if a properly trained schola or cantor is present.
  12. Reverent, doctrinally accurate hymns to complement, not replace, the propers. These should be thematically related to the liturgical season, feast day or place in the Mass when possible, and should encompass the entire treasury of the Church’s sacred music in both Latin and the vernacular.
  13. Remove, or at least relocate to an earlier point in the Mass, the sign of peace among the laity.
  14. Allow only the organ or a cappella except at orchestral Masses or wedding Masses (I know many will not agree, but this is my opinion).
  15. Restore the prayers at the foot of the altar and the final Gospel at least on major feast days.
  16. Ban the hymn, “Go make a difference”. Not just at Mass, but in all aspects of life. Order all printed copies of it to be burned, and excommunicate anyone who ever sings it anywhere. Anyone who sings it accompanied by a tambourine is also to be confined to a private island monastery for life.
Secret option 2: Restore the EF as the OF, but allow portions in the vernacular (I personally feel that in his case at least parts of the Ordinary as well as the Words of Institution, if not the whole Canon, should remain in Latin/Greek, but everything else is fair game). Additionally, the priest could have the option of speaking anything out loud which he would sing in a High Mass, or which require responses, and the people could be allowed to provide any such responses along with the servers and choir. It would sort of look like a combined Missa Cantata/Missa Dialogata.

This is just my humble opinion, though now that I have made it known I expect all the above changes to be implemented immediately…
 
As someone who may end up Anglican in the due course of time, it has nothing to do with music.
However, the music is a big advantage.
 
Understood. I still have a copy of The 1982 hymnal. Still use it in private devotions.
 
Peeps said:
Seat men and women apart?

Which ones get to take care of the children?

Seriously, this is a terrible idea and IMO, demonstrates a misunderstanding of God’s Creation. God’s plan is for most of us to be married, and most of us have children. Children need desperately to see Mom and Dad sitting together, worshiping the Lord in the beauty of holiness. TEENAGERS need to see this, too, and “practice” doing it with girlfriend and boyfriends as they grow up. They will make a lot of mistakes (I know my husband and I were sometimes a little “too cuddly” in the pews!). .

Marriage is the “image” of Christ and His Bride, the Church. To separate man and woman is to mar this image. It does not create a more reverent atmosphere because it’s not God’s plan.
Click to expand...
While I agree that this is not an appropriate solution for North America in our current culture, it is and has been practiced in many places throughout the Church. St. John Chrystostom insisted upon this separation in Constantinople in his time because of the lewd(for his time) behavior displayed by many in the congregation. I have been to a Syriac Orthodox liturgy in which this was the norm, though not rigidly enforced. It really isn’t that big a deal.

As to who would take care of the children, they would probably be allowed to freely move from side to side when they were very young and the community as a whole would participate in ensuring their safety and well-being. That is something we are surely missing in American culture today.
 
Peeps said:
No. I worship in a Christian (Catholic) church.
Click to expand...
This is also an ancient Christian practice. The 1917 Code of Canon law stated: “It is desirable that, consistent with ancient discipline, women be separated from men in church.”

It is contrary to our modern sensibilities, it is not as if it comes out of nowhere and is foreign to Christianity.

Here is an interesting blog post of the subject, from an Orthodox point of view. The Early Church Tradition of Separate Seating: Ancient Practice, Not a Cultural Anomaly – ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN MEETS WORLD
 
I can’t even imagine that kind of child care acceptable to the majority of American parents. You;re right, this is something missing from American culture today, but it’s not likely to return, not in this age of idiotic laws that have allowed parents to be arrested for letting their children play unsupervised out in their own yard.

Teachers aren’t allowed to give their students a hug. Coaches can’t hug their athletes. Doctors have to have a nurse or P.A. or parent in the room when there is a child. We went through the required training at our parish, and one thing I remember is that we should never ever touch a child unless that child has been injured and we know how to give medical aid.

I just can’t imagine it being OK with parents to allow their children to wander when a stranger might look at them or heaven forbid, touch them.

The only ones who would be happy with this arrangement would be the lawyers!

No, in the U.S. at this time in history, it’s much more important for men and women to sit TOGETHER with their children if there are any, and give out a strong message of marital fidelity and love, than to separate men and women because of…I’m not even sure why the poster suggested this “change” to Ordinary Form! Lewd behavior?? I’ve never seen anything in my 14 years in my parish and also playing piano/organ in other parishes that would even remotely suggest lewdness. So what IS the reason for separating men and women?
 
I don’t buy the blog at all. I have enough confidence in men to believe that most of them are capable of controlling their passions.

My husband and I are ONE FLESH, and have been for almost 40 years. I would not want to attend a Mass where we were not allowed to sit together.

I think such a policy would pretty much empty out many Catholic parishes.
 
no hand holding! especially during the Our Father.

no throwing one’s hands towards the priest during the “and also with you” reponses

Both of the above are not actually in the rubrics, but are still practiced widely.

I’d even eliminate the handshake/kiss of peace…maybe just an audible “peace be with you” max.

just MHO!
 
I was received into the Church in 1989. So the Ordinary Form is all I know. I love my parish, but I always try to sit away from other people so I don’t have to hold hands during the Our Father. I just wasn’t raised that way. I grew up as a Southern Baptist and we never held hands in church. We didn’t raise our hands in the air. That would have been seen as undignified. Lots of backslapping and handshakes were exchanged after the service and outside of the sanctuary.
 
giuseppe96 said:
My parish used to
Click to expand...
This is ancient practice in Rome itself in churches built from prior buildings could not place the altar at the East.

The priest faced East, which meant across the altar and facing the people. At three (iirc) times in the Mass, the people turned to face east (with their backs to the priest and altar).

Nothing new under the sun . . .

🤣

hawk
 
What I meant was: he used to face the liturgical east using the freestanding altar.
 
“Liturgical East” is a fairly recent notion . . . using actual East, regardless of relative orientation of priest and people is ancient . . .
 
Peeps said:
I can’t even imagine that kind of child care acceptable to the majority of American parents. You;re right, this is something missing from American culture today, but it’s not likely to return, not in this age of idiotic laws that have allowed parents to be arrested for letting their children play unsupervised out in their own yard.
Click to expand...
I have the blessing of being in a very small parish and we do look after each other’s kids in this way. But I know that our situation is unusual in this day and age in this part of the world.
Peeps said:
I just can’t imagine it being OK with parents to allow their children to wander when a stranger might look at them or heaven forbid, touch them.
Click to expand...
Of course, this is part of the problem, to which I have no solution. When did our fellow parishioners become strangers? The lack of genuine community within the Church is appalling. Of course, if such thing were to be common, someone would come on here and complain about being expected to watch “someone else’s brats.”
Peeps said:
I’m not even sure why the poster suggested this “change” to Ordinary Form!
Click to expand...
Peeps said:
So what IS the reason for separating men and women?
Click to expand...
I think it would be simply an appeal to tradition. I’m actually a bit surprised that more traditionalists don’t bring this up. I think it would be silly to try to bring this back, and offensive in our culture. And what does it have to do with the Ordinary Form, when the Church in the West abandoned this before the Ordinary Form? I’ve never seen it in any Western liturgy, even traditional ones. I’ve seen it only among some Orthodox and one among Eastern-rite Catholics of Middle Eastern origin.
Peeps said:
I don’t buy the blog at all. I have enough confidence in men to believe that most of them are capable of controlling their passions.
Click to expand...
I don’t buy the reasons either. I would not be pleased at all. I just linked to the blog to show that it is a Christian tradition that was fairly widespread until relatively recently and is still practiced by some.
angel12 said:
Is your goal to model the Mass on Islamic services?
Click to expand...
The tradition of separating men and women is not foreign to Christianity. It has nothing to do with Islam.
 
Last edited:
Firstly, sign of peace would be boomed out of there.

Secondly, the singing. Oh the singing. As a parish, God forgot to give us the ability to follow a tune.

The laity doing the Orans posture infuriates me and I don’t even know why.

More sprinkling of Holy water would be great despite it always going in my eye. I like reciting our baptismal promises.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top