Mutual Enrichment of EF and OF

[floresco]

I have been thinking about the words of Pope Benedict in his letter to bishops on the publication of * Summorum Pontificum*:
**The two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching. **
The idea of being “mutually enriching” implies that they are different and have different strengths and weaknesses. Under the influence of a partisan spirit, people look at differences as opportunities to play “my side is better”. I suspect that exposure to this approach has left many people reluctant to compare the two Forms. They have too much unfortunate experience of one form being pitted against the other. This partisan spirit is practically the opposite of what the Holy Father is calling for in mutual enrichment. With that attitude we look at the differences of the other thinking, “What can I learn from this?”

In his letter, Pope Benedict gives some example of mutual enrichment. The OF enrich the EF by offering new Saints. The EF can enrich the OF by what he calls “the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage”. I think he is talking about the sense of the sacred and I suspect this is what many people are referring to when they speak of the reverence of the EF. The Pope is concerned widely occurring “arbitrary deformations of the liturgy” in the OF and I think he is saying that the influence of the EF will help to fix this problem.

Pope Benedict is, of course, talking about mutual enrichment of the two Forms in terms of the Church as a whole. I was thinking that I could apply it at an individual level too. Here is an example. The words of Consecration are silent in the EF. This enriches my experience of the OF because, when I hear the words of Our Lord spoken aloud at the Consecration, rather than taking it for granted, I have a sense of it being a great privilege. The difference also works in reverse. When I am at the EF the silence at the Consecration draws my attention to the holiness and power of God even more because it is in contrast with the spoken option.

 

[Esrb99]

One thing that interests me in the OF is the chanting of the Eucharistic Doxology-the “Per ipsum, et cum ipso, et in ipso, est tibi Deo Patri omnipotenti in unitate Spiritus Sancti, omnis honor et gloria per omnia saecula saeculorum. Amen.” (Through him, and with him, and in him, O God, almighty Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, forever and ever. Amen.)

As many will well know, the entirety of the phrase can be chanted in the OF, whereas in the EF it is merely chanted at, “Per omni a saecula saeculorum”. I am not certain of why this is the case (that it was not chanted, or that it was changed) but I feel that, barring some immense theological reason, that mutual enrichment could allow for the EF to attain the entire chanted doxology, but still have the Pater Noster chanted by the celebrant alone.

Here’s an example from the holy father:

youtu.be/yDvYMHAL3GA?t=2h36m46s

 

[ProVobis]

One thing that interests me in the OF is the chanting of the Eucharistic Doxology-the “Per ipsum, et cum ipso, et in ipso, est tibi Deo Patri omnipotenti in unitate Spiritus Sancti, omnis honor et gloria per omnia saecula saeculorum. Amen.” (Through him, and with him, and in him, O God, almighty Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, forever and ever. Amen.)

As many will well know, the entirety of the phrase can be chanted in the OF, whereas in the EF it is merely chanted at, “Per omni a saecula saeculorum”. I am not certain of why this is the case (that it was not chanted, or that it was changed) but I feel that, barring some immense theological reason, that mutual enrichment could allow for the EF to attain the entire chanted doxology, but still have the Pater Noster chanted by the celebrant alone.

Here’s an example from the holy father:

youtu.be/yDvYMHAL3GA?t=2h36m46s

Interesting point.

BTW, the English translation seems to have lost the intensive nature of the Latin ipsum, ipso, ipso. I didn’t notice that till now.

 

[porthos11]

I have been thinking about the words of Pope Benedict in his letter to bishops on the publication of * Summorum Pontificum*:
**The two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching. **
The idea of being “mutually enriching” implies that they are different and have different strengths and weaknesses. Under the influence of a partisan spirit, people look at differences as opportunities to play “my side is better”. I suspect that exposure to this approach has left many people reluctant to compare the two Forms. They have too much unfortunate experience of one form being pitted against the other. This partisan spirit is practically the opposite of what the Holy Father is calling for in mutual enrichment. With that attitude we look at the differences of the other thinking, “What can I learn from this?”

In his letter, Pope Benedict gives some example of mutual enrichment. The OF enrich the EF by offering new Saints. The EF can enrich the OF by what he calls “the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage”. I think he is talking about the sense of the sacred and I suspect this is what many people are referring to when they speak of the reverence of the EF. The Pope is concerned widely occurring “arbitrary deformations of the liturgy” in the OF and I think he is saying that the influence of the EF will help to fix this problem.

Pope Benedict is, of course, talking about mutual enrichment of the two Forms in terms of the Church as a whole. I was thinking that I could apply it at an individual level too. Here is an example. The words of Consecration are silent in the EF. This enriches my experience of the OF because, when I hear the words of Our Lord spoken aloud at the Consecration, rather than taking it for granted, I have a sense of it being a great privilege. The difference also works in reverse. When I am at the EF the silence at the Consecration draws my attention to the holiness and power of God even more because it is in contrast with the spoken option.

The OF can enrich the EF by:

1. Implementing the three-year Lectionary.
2. Partially making the Canon audible, such as the words of consecration and the per ipsum.
3. Incorporating new saints from the OF calendar.

The EF can enrich the OF by:

1. Returning to ad orientem as the normative posture.
2. Returning to kneeling at altar rails as normative for Communion.
3. Returning to Latin Ordinary texts while retaining vernacular Proper texts.
4. Returning to a silent Canon, perhaps with the exception of the Institution Narrative and per ipsum.
5. Making the maniple and biretta normative again.
6. Using chanted Propers again even if in the vernacular.
7. Restoring the position of subdeacon (not necessarily restoring the order).

 

[YoungTradCath]

One thing that interests me in the OF is the chanting of the Eucharistic Doxology-the “Per ipsum, et cum ipso, et in ipso, est tibi Deo Patri omnipotenti in unitate Spiritus Sancti, omnis honor et gloria per omnia saecula saeculorum. Amen.” (Through him, and with him, and in him, O God, almighty Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, forever and ever. Amen.)

As many will well know, the entirety of the phrase can be chanted in the OF, whereas in the EF it is merely chanted at, “Per omni a saecula saeculorum”. I am not certain of why this is the case (that it was not chanted, or that it was changed) but I feel that, barring some immense theological reason, that mutual enrichment could allow for the EF to attain the entire chanted doxology, but still have the Pater Noster chanted by the celebrant alone.

Here’s an example from the holy father:

youtu.be/yDvYMHAL3GA?t=2h36m46s

Eh, it’s quite jarring (in a good way) to just randomly hear “Per omnia saecula saeculorum” after a silence. I quite like it, and no, I don’t currently have a better reason than that. The Per omnia of the silent Per ipsum ties in quite nicely with the Per omnia of the silent Secret prayer. Both are silent up to the Per ipsum.

I feel it is awkward to have an audible Secret (ie Super Oblata in the OF) and then go into the Preface Dialogue; it sounds more elegant to just go straight in to the Preface Dialogue after the chanted Per omnia of the Secret.

So instead of hearing, for example, in the OF:

"Haec hostia, Domine, quaesumus, emundet nostra delicta, et ad celebranda festa paschalia fidelium tuorum corpora mentesque sanctificet. Per Dominum… per omnia saecula saeculorum. Amen.

Dominus vobiscum. Et cum spiritu tuo.
Sursum corda. Habemus ad Dominum.
Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro. Dignum et iustum est."

you hear, in the EF:

"… per omnia saecula saeculorum. Amen.

Dominus vobiscum. Et cum spiritu tuo.
Sursum corda. Habemus ad Dominum.
Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro. Dignum et iustum est."

The shortness of what you hear of the Secret (just the Per ipsum of the doxology) ties in very nicely with the call-and-response nature of the Preface Dialogue.

 

[mgsk]

The OF can enrich the EF by:

1. Implementing the three-year Lectionary.

Please no!

1. Partially making the Canon audible, such as the words of consecration and the per ipsum.

Maybe the Doxology, but I think in general it would be unwise. The silent Canon reminds us that we are witnessing a great act taking place upon the altar - an intimate and unbloody Sacrifice being offered by the Priest to God (which remains the case whether or not there’s a congregation to witness it).

1. Incorporating new saints from the OF calendar.

Yes, this one might make sense

And of course I like your other suggestions which followed.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Is it ever OK for the precious blood to be offered to everyone taking communion in the EF if they want it?

 

[QuestingKnight]

Well, from a traditionalist point of view:

Q: Could the OF be said in a more solemn and impersonal manner in your local parish church, like the EF normally is?

A: Yes.

Q: Could the EF become a laboratory for liturgical experimenters, importing rubrics, ideas and text from the OF?

A: No, if the priest wanted conoisseurs to go to it.

So I don’t know what ‘mutual enrichment’ means, in practice.

 

[OraLabora]

The OF can enrich the EF by:

1. Implementing the three-year Lectionary.
2. Partially making the Canon audible, such as the words of consecration and the per ipsum.
3. Incorporating new saints from the OF calendar.

The EF can enrich the OF by:

1. Returning to ad orientem as the normative posture.

Wouldn’t work in a Benedictine monastery

1. Returning to kneeling at altar rails as normative for Communion.

Wouldn’t work in a Benedictine monastery; they never had communion rails, communion was at the gate of the enclosure

1. Returning to Latin Ordinary texts while retaining vernacular Proper texts.

Don’t forget the Greek Kyrie

1. Returning to a silent Canon, perhaps with the exception of the Institution Narrative and per ipsum.

Why?

1. Making the maniple and biretta normative again.

And what about religious habits?

1. Using chanted Propers again even if in the vernacular.

Already exists but I agree it’s far from normative; however there’s also the Graduale Simplex. Our abbey chants the propers in Latin every day in the OF

1. Restoring the position of subdeacon (not necessarily restoring the order).

Well, from a traditionalist point of view:

Q: Could the OF be said in a more solemn and impersonal manner in your local parish church, like the EF normally is?

A: Yes.

Q: Could the EF become a laboratory for liturgical experimenters, importing rubrics, ideas and text from the OF?

A: No, if the priest wanted conoisseurs to go to it.

So I don’t know what ‘mutual enrichment’ means, in practice.

Anything is possible if it is rendered official by the Church. Popes have changed the rubrics of the EF (and Divine Office… let’s not forget that the Mass is only a part of the liturgy, albeit its most important part; and in that light I would say a way the EF liturgy could be enhanced is to adopt a modified version of the LOTH or perhaps a simplified version of the Roman Breviary-say spread over 2 weeks instead of one-to encourage lay participation).

 

[porthos11]

Originally Posted by porthos11
The OF can enrich the EF by:

1. Implementing the three-year Lectionary.

I keep hearing this objection but never any concrete reasons. Why not?

 

[porthos11]

he EF can enrich the OF by:

1. Returning to ad orientem as the normative posture.

Wouldn’t work in a Benedictine monastery

1. Returning to kneeling at altar rails as normative for Communion.

Wouldn’t work in a Benedictine monastery; they never had communion rails, communion was at the gate of the enclosure

1. Returning to Latin Ordinary texts while retaining vernacular Proper texts.

Don’t forget the Greek Kyrie

1. Returning to a silent Canon, perhaps with the exception of the Institution Narrative and per ipsum.

Why?

1. Making the maniple and biretta normative again.

And what about religious habits?

1. Using chanted Propers again even if in the vernacular.

Already exists but I agree it’s far from normative; however there’s also the Graduale Simplex. Our abbey chants the propers in Latin every day in the OF

Most Catholics do not deal with Benedictine monasteries, so adjust accordingly.Where a diocesan biretta is mentioned, substitute for a hood or whatever.

As for my thoughts on the Canon, no particular reason. I just think it’s a good cross between the majestic silence of the EF and the benefit of actually hearing the words of Consecration. It’s how the Ukrainian Catholics do it. If the line has to be drawn, I would lean towards the silent Canon of the EF.

 

[drforjc]

I keep hearing this objection but never any concrete reasons. Why not?

I’ve always been in favor of keeping the traditional Sunday pericopes as Year A and adding other years.

 

[OraLabora]

Most Catholics do not deal with Benedictine monasteries, so adjust accordingly.Where a diocesan biretta is mentioned, substitute for a hood or whatever.

As for my thoughts on the Canon, no particular reason. I just think it’s a good cross between the majestic silence of the EF and the benefit of actually hearing the words of Consecration. It’s how the Ukrainian Catholics do it. If the line has to be drawn, I would lean towards the silent Canon of the EF.

I’ve been to Benedictine monasteries that are national pilgrimage sites (e.g. Montserrat in Catalonia) or act as de facto parish churches. We need to be careful about creating universal expectations that do not fit the various traditions in the Church. There are also 11 reaming territorial abbeys where the abbot (“abbot Mullins dioceseos”) acte as local ordinary.

 

[JReducation]

I have been thinking about the words of Pope Benedict in his letter to bishops on the publication of * Summorum Pontificum*:
**The two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching. **
The idea of being “mutually enriching” implies that they are different and have different strengths and weaknesses. Under the influence of a partisan spirit, people look at differences as opportunities to play “my side is better”. I suspect that exposure to this approach has left many people reluctant to compare the two Forms. They have too much unfortunate experience of one form being pitted against the other. This partisan spirit is practically the opposite of what the Holy Father is calling for in mutual enrichment. With that attitude we look at the differences of the other thinking, “What can I learn from this?”

In his letter, Pope Benedict gives some example of mutual enrichment. The OF enrich the EF by offering new Saints. The EF can enrich the OF by what he calls “the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage”. I think he is talking about the sense of the sacred and I suspect this is what many people are referring to when they speak of the reverence of the EF. The Pope is concerned widely occurring “arbitrary deformations of the liturgy” in the OF and I think he is saying that the influence of the EF will help to fix this problem.

Pope Benedict is, of course, talking about mutual enrichment of the two Forms in terms of the Church as a whole. I was thinking that I could apply it at an individual level too. Here is an example. The words of Consecration are silent in the EF. This enriches my experience of the OF because, when I hear the words of Our Lord spoken aloud at the Consecration, rather than taking it for granted, I have a sense of it being a great privilege. The difference also works in reverse. When I am at the EF the silence at the Consecration draws my attention to the holiness and power of God even more because it is in contrast with the spoken option.

You have hit some nails on the head. There are a number of qualities that each form has that can be of great value to the other.

The calendar: as you have already mentioned. The EF calendar needs updating to include some of the younger saints (younger by date of canonization). Who won’t be edified by St. Maximilian, Bl. Mother Teresa, St. Pio, Bl. John Paul, Bl. John Newman, St. Elizabeth Seton, St. Giana Molla, etc?

The dialogue: it’s not a dogma that the EF has to be silent. Many religious orders use the EF and it’s a dialogue between the priest and the congregation. Everything is audible.

Facing East: There is not dogma that says that the priest must face the people in the OF. He can celebrate the OF and face East

Latin: The OF can be celebrated in Latin

Music: Gregorian chant is the diamond of liturgical music, but no one ever said that there could only be one precious stone. There are other forms of liturgical music, such as many of the German hymns that have been translated into English. They’re very beautiful. There is not reason that a modern composer cannot write good hymns and melodies for worship at either mass. A Communion hymn should be beautiful in either form.

Readings: the three readings at the OF is a wonderful idea, because it pulls together the entire story of Christ as is found in the OT, Psalms, Gospels and Epistles… How many people are there who do not know that the OT is about Jesus Christ? I’ll bet you that there are many. If with a good sermon that links the readings, this becomes more tangible.

History: the Tridentine form has a lot of history. Actually, each rite within the form has a story of its own. I think it would be great if people not only attended an EF, at least once in their lives, but also have religious education on the rites and their history. The same is true about the OF. Contrary to what people say, much of what we find in the OF is not Protestant. It comes from the monastic and the mendicant traditions. There is is a reason why people in the 1960s thought that this would be “attractive” to Protestants. Notice the quotation marks. I’m not so sure that the idea was to make the mass attractive to non Catholics. That idea was in a few minds, not the entire Council. Be that as it may, the reason that some would say this is because it has some credibility. Luther was a friar. What we call the OF today, is very similar to what the friars celebrated for hundreds of years. This format is probably familiar to Protestants from the Lutheran line. Observe, it’s not Protestant in origin. It’s actually Augustinian in origin. There could be some great Liturgical History classes taught for the faithful, classes that would cover both forms and show their value without the pitting one against the other.

Just some thoughts of mine running through my head really fast here.

 

[Melchior_1]

You have hit some nails on the head. There are a number of qualities that each form has that can be of great value to the other.

The calendar: as you have already mentioned. The EF calendar needs updating to include some of the younger saints (younger by date of canonization). Who won’t be edified by St. Maximilian, Bl. Mother Teresa, St. Pio, Bl. John Paul, Bl. John Newman, St. Elizabeth Seton, St. Giana Molla, etc?

The dialogue: it’s not a dogma that the EF has to be silent. Many religious orders use the EF and it’s a dialogue between the priest and the congregation. Everything is audible.

Facing East: There is not dogma that says that the priest must face the people in the OF. He can celebrate the OF and face East

Latin: The OF can be celebrated in Latin

Music: Gregorian chant is the diamond of liturgical music, but no one ever said that there could only be one precious stone. There are other forms of liturgical music, such as many of the German hymns that have been translated into English. They’re very beautiful. There is not reason that a modern composer cannot write good hymns and melodies for worship at either mass. A Communion hymn should be beautiful in either form.

Readings: the three readings at the OF is a wonderful idea, because it pulls together the entire story of Christ as is found in the OT, Psalms, Gospels and Epistles… How many people are there who do not know that the OT is about Jesus Christ? I’ll bet you that there are many. If with a good sermon that links the readings, this becomes more tangible.

History: the Tridentine form has a lot of history. Actually, each rite within the form has a story of its own. I think it would be great if people not only attended an EF, at least once in their lives, but also have religious education on the rites and their history. The same is true about the OF. Contrary to what people say, much of what we find in the OF is not Protestant. It comes from the monastic and the mendicant traditions. There is is a reason why people in the 1960s thought that this would be “attractive” to Protestants. Notice the quotation marks. I’m not so sure that the idea was to make the mass attractive to non Catholics. That idea was in a few minds, not the entire Council. Be that as it may, the reason that some would say this is because it has some credibility. Luther was a friar. What we call the OF today, is very similar to what the friars celebrated for hundreds of years. This format is probably familiar to Protestants from the Lutheran line. Observe, it’s not Protestant in origin. It’s actually Augustinian in origin. There could be some great Liturgical History classes taught for the faithful, classes that would cover both forms and show their value without the pitting one against the other.

Just some thoughts of mine running through my head really fast here.

A nice rundown Brother. Do you have any suggestions for reading material that could cover the underlined (that doesn’t require a STD

 

[OraLabora]

Contrary to what people say, much of what we find in the OF is not Protestant. It comes from the monastic and the mendicant traditions. There is is a reason why people in the 1960s thought that this would be “attractive” to Protestants. Notice the quotation marks. I’m not so sure that the idea was to make the mass attractive to non Catholics. That idea was in a few minds, not the entire Council. Be that as it may, the reason that some would say this is because it has some credibility. Luther was a friar. What we call the OF today, is very similar to what the friars celebrated for hundreds of years. This format is probably familiar to Protestants from the Lutheran line. Observe, it’s not Protestant in origin. It’s actually Augustinian in origin. There could be some great Liturgical History classes taught for the faithful, classes that would cover both forms and show their value without the pitting one against the other.

Just some thoughts of mine running through my head really fast here.

I think you may have made me realize why I like the OF so much; I am very draw to monastic spirituality in particular monastic simplicity. There’s also a community aspect to the OF; in monastic tradition monks wouldn’t sit quietly as the priest celebrated the Mass but they would chant responsorially in choir as active participants in the liturgy, even those not ordained (and in early monastic times most were not ordained). It also a reason why versus populum was not unknown in the monastic tradition. Eventually monasticism drifted away from this as monks were divided into choir monks and lay brothers as the liturgy became more complex. The latter were charged with the physical work of the abbey; the choir monks were either ordained or on their way to being so and their only job was more or less the liturgy.

By just before Vatican II monastics had drifted far away from the monastic ideal of equal members of a community all pitching in with the physical tasks of running it; the Rule of St. Benedict is clear on the value of physical labour for all members of a monastery. Vatican II returned monastic orders to that ideal. In the abbey I’m associated with, lay brothers were merged into the community as fully professed brothers; at the same time a simplified Divine Office was adopted (150 psalms per week instead of 250, and Latin at Lauds, Vespers and the Mass only), because a consequence of this was that all had to share in the workload equally, even the ordained, and still have time for the Divine Office and lectio. ISTM that the simplicity of the OF, and it’s community dimension, suits that return to early monastic ideals better, though I know there are some monasteries that use the EF. Most though use the OF. The most popular Divine Office schema among Benedictines is schema B as used at our abbey (150 psalms per week), though the original schema (250 psalms per week) of St. Benedict is still used in pre- and post-Vatican II forms.

We had some vigorous debate on church architecture on other threads that also addressed monastic simplicity. Suffices to say it is a valid spirituality within the Church and can find expression in a reverently celebrated OF Mass within an austere church. Moreover it isn’t something that needs to be kept cloistered and from which the average Catholic needs to be protected from. Fortunately “Universal” does not mean “Uniform” (I hope!), and all charisms can be allowed to influence Catholicism outside their cloisters and conventual chapels and thus be allowed to attract the faithful who are drawn to those charisms.

We shouldn’t just be talking about OF and EF mutual enrichment, but how the various orders and communities have enriched the Church, and nurtured and developed its liturgies (plural), not just the Mass but the entire liturgy.

 

[ProVobis]

The dialogue: it’s not a dogma that the EF has to be silent. Many religious orders use the EF and it’s a dialogue between the priest and the congregation. Everything is audible.

Br JR, I wasn’t aware of such allowed variations in the EF. In this case, Trent pre-supposed that the design of the Mass was such that certain parts were supposed to be said submissa voce (in a low voice). (Session 22)

And whereas such is the nature of man, that, without external helps, he can not easily be raised to the meditation of divine things; therefore has holy Mother Church instituted certain rites, to wit, that certain things be pronounced in the mass in a low, and others in a louder, tone. …

That said, some EF’s are completely silent during the canon and some are whisper-microphoned. I suppose there are different interpretations and volumes of *submissa voce *but it seems that the contrast principles of Trent still hold even in those EFs. Having everything at the same tone would be against that principle IMO.

 

[JReducation]

A nice rundown Brother. Do you have any suggestions for reading material that could cover the underlined (that doesn’t require a STD

I’ve never seen such a book. I wish there were. I have seen many articles and papers on the subject. I have also attended many lectures in the area of religious history and theology of history. Then of course there is the study of scripture. As you go through all of these things, you begin to connect the dots.

For example, to the best of my knowledge, there is no book about the prayers at the foot of the altar. However, when one studies the OT, one learns that this a form of prayer that was said as the king said as he approached the temple. David repeats the phrase in the psalms. “I will go to the house of the Lord. The Lord who gives joy to my youth.” There are many references that say, “Let us go up to the house of the Lord.” We can see where this rite comes from.

Another example from the OF is the entrance procession. That’s a very ancient rite that begins in Judaism. The procession to the temple. However, what many people never got to see was that this was kept alive in monasteries and friaries around the world. When the bell rank calling the friars and monks to prayer, they didn’t wait to enter the chapel in order to pray. They began to pray as they walked to the chapel from different directions where they were working. As they came together at the door, an entrance procession was formed. The processed into the choir to pray the Divine Office or the mass. The novices were always in front, then those in simple vows, then those in solemn vows, then the vicar and the superior. If the superior was not a priest, then the monk or friar who was a priest would walk behind the superior. He brought up the rear, because this is the place of honor. At the moment, he is ministering to his brothers as Christ the priest ministered to his Apostles at the Last Supper.

We can see a tradition from the OT, evolving into a conventual tradition and later picking up a theological significance. Just as Christ entered into Jerusalem the priest enters into the church building. But Christ’s entrance into Jerusalem was foreshadowed in the OT by the entrance of the kings and high priests into the temple. Just as the voices of the OT proclaimed, “Let us go to the house of the Lord,” so does the priest as the foot of the altar proclaim the same words. Here too we see what was foreshadowed in the OT come to life in the Gospel and payed out in liturgy. That’s why we say that liturgy is drama.

We can’t find all of this in one single book. We look at different works and we see how they connect. A good scholar can make the connections and teach them to people. As Floresco said in the original post, the two forms can enrich each other rather than compete with each other. This is just one of many ways in which this enrichment can happen.

 

[floresco]

Contrary to what people say, much of what we find in the OF is not Protestant. It comes from the monastic and the mendicant traditions. There is is a reason why people in the 1960s thought that this would be “attractive” to Protestants. Notice the quotation marks. I’m not so sure that the idea was to make the mass attractive to non Catholics. That idea was in a few minds, not the entire Council.

I would not have said “attractive” to Protestants but “accessible” to them. That actually matches my personal experience. I was a Protestant when I first encountered the Catholic Mass and it was the Eucharist that drew me to the Church. It is quite possible that I would have been overwhelmed or confused by the older form if that had been my first exposure to Catholicism. As things happened, I came to the Church through the Ordinary Form of the Mass. Whatever issues I might have with it, I must always be grateful for that.

 

[LilyM]

I keep hearing this objection but never any concrete reasons. Why not?

Same here - I really cannot see any disadvantage which outweighs the huge advantages of being exposed to more scripture during the Liturgy of the Word, and accordingly more priestly teaching during the homilies upon said scripture.