Mix of Extrodinary Form and English Novus Ordo Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter Leonce
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Was there a Last Gospel (from John)? After Low Mass 3 Hail Marys, the Salve Regina and the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel are to be said, did that happen?

I’m getting the impression that it was probably just the OF in Latin, not the EF at all. Also, mixing of the 2 forms is prohibited as far as I know so if it was some sort of hybrid Mass…idk.
 
Leonce said:
Re-read my original post and I was a bit vague.

The Liturgy of the Eucharist was different than a Latin OF. I regularly went to a bi-weekly OF in Latin back in college, and it was led by various priests (one of whom was a Latin scholar / former Latin professor.) I’ve never seen an EF mass, but the Liturgy of the Eucharist was different from the OF form (Latin or Vernacular.)
Click to expand...
Then I guess it was as he said, the extraordinary form, even if he varied it for some reason. There is a romanticized notion that it is impossible for this form to be said in any way less than perfect. Of course there is no logical reason why a priest could not take a detour, even if illicit from the proper form.
 
pnewton said:
Of course there is no logical reason why a priest could not take a detour, even if illicit from the proper form.
Click to expand...
I did not know it was fine to advocate going against the directives of the church in regards to the mass.
 
The best way to check whether a Mass is licit and valid is to look up the parish in its geographical diocese’s web site. If the parish is legally a part of the diocese then you can bank on it being legitimate. If the parish is not listed, then caveat emptor. Look around for telltale signs of schism, such as use of terms such as “Independent” “Old Catholic” commemoration of the wrong bishop or pope, etc.
 
Esrb99 said:
I did not know it was fine to advocate going against the directives of the church in regards to the mass.
Click to expand...
It is not fine to advocate going against the directives of the Church. Why even ask such a question?
 
pnewton said:
It is not fine to advocate going against the directives of the Church. Why even ask such a question?
Click to expand...
It seemed like you were advocating such things when you said,

“Of course there is no logical reason why a priest could not take a detour, even if illicit from the proper form.”

Correct me if I’m reading this wrong, but your statement here seems to be saying that it’s okay for priests to ‘take a detour’ from the rubrics of mass, even if it makes the mass illicit.

If I am reading this wrongly, then I apologize. It just seems like with this sentence, you are advocating such a position.
 
Esrb99 said:
It seemed like you were advocating such things when you said,

“Of course there is no logical reason why a priest could not take a detour, even if illicit from the proper form.”

Correct me if I’m reading this wrong, but your statement here seems to be saying that it’s okay for priests to ‘take a detour’ from the rubrics of mass, even if it makes the mass illicit.

If I am reading this wrongly, then I apologize. It just seems like with this sentence, you are advocating such a position.
Click to expand...
Yes, you misread it. I used “could (not)” as opposed to “should (not)”.
 
Elizium23 said:
The best way to check whether a Mass is licit and valid is to look up the parish in its geographical diocese’s web site. If the parish is legally a part of the diocese then you can bank on it being legitimate. If the parish is not listed, then caveat emptor. Look around for telltale signs of schism, such as use of terms such as “Independent” “Old Catholic” commemoration of the wrong bishop or pope, etc.
Click to expand...
It’s part of the diocese, rural and the only Catholic church within many miles. 🙂 Which is why I was charitably hoping that my gut was wrong, and it was an EF mass. Based on this Saturday’s mass, armed with my guides to what an EF mass should look like, it is a mosaic of both NO and EF. However, he is introducing it as an EF mass. 🤷

Anyway. I’m guessing the Eucharist is still valid as long as the words of consecration aren’t altered? (Despite the language.)
 
pnewton said:
Then I guess it was as he said, the extraordinary form, even if he varied it for some reason. There is a romanticized notion that it is impossible for this form to be said in any way less than perfect. Of course there is no logical reason why a priest could not take a detour, even if illicit from the proper form.
Click to expand...
I’m glad you brought this up, because I was wondering the same thing. The OP sounded to me like an EF Mass with…dare I say it?..abuses. But after reading CAF, I didn’t think this was possible, since the EF is always described as impervious to abuses.

OP, were missals were provided? Perhaps it’s because of my Evangelical Protestant background and maybe it’s because I had such a terrifying experience with Evangelical Protestant pastors deceiving me and so I have major trust issues, but I would never, ever participate in something in the U.S. that did not have a translation available. I would be afraid of what was being said and who it was being said to worship. Latin is not only the language of the Catholic Church, but it is also the language used by Satanists in their “masses.” I would have walked out (quietly, with no fuss).

I want to qualify my paragraph above by saying that if I were travelling in a foreign country, of course I would attend Mass in their local vernacular if available, or in Latin if that was the Mass being offered. But I am not likely to travel to a foreign country, unless something amazing happens in my life. So for me, that’s not an issue. I have attended Italian and Polish Masses here in the States, but the translations were available (other than the homilies).
 
Leonce said:
It’s part of the diocese, rural and the only Catholic church within many miles. 🙂 Which is why I was charitably hoping that my gut was wrong, and it was an EF mass. Based on this Saturday’s mass, armed with my guides to what an EF mass should look like, it is a mosaic of both NO and EF. However, he is introducing it as an EF mass. 🤷

Anyway. I’m guessing the Eucharist is still valid as long as the words of consecration aren’t altered? (Despite the language.)
Click to expand...
It is possible that your priest is sincere in his efforts to say the EF Mass, but he may not have the correct instruction on how to celebrate the EF Mass. There is a lot of misunderstanding about the EF throughout the Church in America. If he is truly making an attempt, but simply not getting it right, it might be useful to contact the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (North American District)
fssp.com/press/
or the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest
institute-christ-king.org/

I know that they will work with Diocesan Priests to assist them in the correct celebration of the EF. Here in our Diocese and in other places, the FSSP priests have assisted a number of diocesan priests who have expressed an interest in the EF Mass. Perhaps they can assist your priest as well.
 
I’m guessing your priest isn’t trained particularly well in the celebration of the EF, OR he illicitly mixed the Forms, which he may not know is not permitted.
 
For the Extrodinary form of the mass there are thing what are requited for it to be the true
to Traditional Latin that’s why I think they should be mix. It’s ok if some of the Novus Ordo mass is said in latin the Language of the church
 
Cat said:
OP, were missals were provided? Perhaps it’s because of my Evangelical Protestant background and maybe it’s because I had such a terrifying experience with Evangelical Protestant pastors deceiving me and so I have major trust issues, but I would never, ever participate in something in the U.S. that did not have a translation available. I would be afraid of what was being said and who it was being said to worship. Latin is not only the language of the Catholic Church, but it is also the language used by Satanists in their “masses.” I would have walked out (quietly, with no fuss).

I want to qualify my paragraph above by saying that if I were travelling in a foreign country, of course I would attend Mass in their local vernacular if available, or in Latin if that was the Mass being offered. But I am not likely to travel to a foreign country, unless something amazing happens in my life. So for me, that’s not an issue. I have attended Italian and Polish Masses here in the States, but the translations were available (other than the homilies).
Click to expand...
No missal was provided, and we didn’t have any warning. I’ve attended Latin OF masses with priests very well trained in Latin, who I really trust, and even then it was announced and we had handouts provided. I brought printed out ones yesterday.

I am pretty torn-up about what to do, as I teach a few religious ed classes, and he’s cut people out of the RE program before after disagreements. 😦 I started Kindergarten RE, and it’s been so beautiful to learn prayers and about the faith with those kiddos. I would hate to lose that…
 
You might try contacting the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter yourself and explain the situation. Maybe they could offer to assist your priest. In my experience, they are very discreet and diplomatic about this. Their only desire is for the EF Mass to be celebrated properly, and they would never seek to interfere with the priest’s authority.

Also you might watch the link posted by bben. It may be that the priest is celebrating the OF in Latin as the Novus Ordo Missae - which is perfectly acceptable (although it would be better if he had Latin-English missals available). He may simply think the the Latin version of the OF is the EF. A lot of people have this misconception.

I would not think of this as a disagreement, so much as a sincere desire to help.
 
YoungTradCath said:
I’m guessing your priest isn’t trained particularly well in the celebration of the EF, OR he illicitly mixed the Forms, which he may not know is not permitted.
Click to expand...
This is my understanding as well. The only approved Missals in the EF-OF scenario are the 1970 Missal (3rd Edition) and the liturgical books of 1962, done only in the Latin as it was in 1962, with perhaps minor exception in the Low Mass.
 
YoungTradCath said:
I’m guessing your priest isn’t trained particularly well in the celebration of the EF, OR he illicitly mixed the Forms, which he may not know is not permitted.
Click to expand...
This is all the more reason to contact the FSSP. They have been helpful to many diocesan priests who are making an attempt at the EF Mass. Our own associate pastor here has traveled on some occasions to other states to assist a priest in saying the EF Mass. The FSSP is serving a wonderful apostolate in showing how to properly celebrate the EF Mass.
 
It could be possible that the Priest was using the Missal which came out around 1965 or so. While it was never a proper Missal per se, it was used between the end of Vatican II and the implementation of the Ordinary Form in either 69 or 70. It was a blend of the Missal of 1962 and changes that were being contemplated in the Massat the time. It was normally said partially in the vernacular with some prayers still in Latin, the Priest was free to face either way and there was a different arrangement for some of the prayers.

The only Missals of this type that I have seen were issued by the Maryknolls.
 
Mike30 said:
It could be possible that the Priest was using the Missal which came out around 1965 or so. While it was never a proper Missal per se, it was used between the end of Vatican II and the implementation of the Ordinary Form in either 69 or 70. It was a blend of the Missal of 1962 and changes that were being contemplated in the Massat the time. It was normally said partially in the vernacular with some prayers still in Latin, the Priest was free to face either way and there was a different arrangement for some of the prayers.

The only Missals of this type that I have seen were issued by the Maryknolls.
Click to expand...
Although that Missal cannot be licitly used anymore.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top