This has already been done. It’s called the Anglican Use of the Roman Rite.
- Status
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Meh. It seems that the OF Lectionary is all over the place sometimes; there seems to be three different themes going on every Sunday. Sometimes there is a link, sometimes it’s just like, why did they pick that randomness?
J
JustaServant
Guest
We must be pretty lucky in our little hamlet here. Our parish does a very reverant OF and the priest is very conservative. There are a few things I would rather not see, but I can live with it. And I know what I can and cannot live with.
J
jwinch2
Guest
Then perhaps the homilist needs to do a better job of tying them together.
P
ProVobis
Guest
J
jwinch2
Guest
I would be delighted if that would happen in the OF Mass, truly delighted. It is my understanding that the GIRM states that the Graduale Romanum is supposed to be the primary source for the processional music at Mass (Entrance, Offertory, Communion) and for the chants after the First Reading and before the Gospel.
General Instruction of the Roman Missal:
Regardless, the homilist could do a better job also of tying scripture readings together. If that could be done in combination with use of the propers, or at least the antiphons, even better.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
However, it must be noted that the no. 1 choice in the English translation of the (OF) Roman Missal is a bit confusing. The Introit and Communion in the Missal are only to be used in said Masses.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
I am trying to see a good in the OF Lectionary’s layout. The readings do flow rather well from day to day, but oftentimes, the readings have absolutely nothing to do with the day. That is to say, you have almost two themes going on at once: the theme of the Mass (saint, some celebration of the life of the Lord, Marian feast, whatever) and the theme(s) of the readings. The two often do not tie together in the OF.
However, as I said, the readings do flow rather well from day to day, obviously disregarding whatever particular celebration is being done. It is almost as if the readings are usually independent of the particular Mass being celebrated, as if two different people designed the Missal and Lectionary with two different ideologies. The idea of the OF Lectionary seems to imply that a day-to-day flow of readings is a good thing. I tend to agree, to an extent. It provides a way for a priest to delve very deeply into certain aspects of the readings without having months and months separating related readings.
On the other hand, as I said, this layout sometimes destroys the cohesiveness of the readings to the Mass being celebrated. Many times I am at an OF Mass and I am like, what in the world does this have to do with this Mass? The priest preaches but often his homily doesn’t have much to do with the particular saint or whatever due to his focusing on readings which often already don’t have anything to do with the particular Mass. I would say a good compromise is that, for Feria days, a “constant flow” paradigm be used and, for all other days/celebrations, readings relating to the particular celebration at hand be used, so that the celebration and readings are unified.
J
JReducation
Guest
I’m on board with you on that. I think that we can always learn from another person, even from their mistakes.
Not necessarily. If it does annoy, it may annoy people who don’t understand ecclessiology. Let’s look at one at a time.
OT readings; Including alternating these with the Epistles take nothing from the liturgy. In fact, the entire OT is about Christ. It’s a matter of pairing the correct readings. Most of the OT foreshadows the NT. For example, the story of the Passover foreshadows the Lord’s Supper. The story of Creation foreshadows the Prologue of John. And like this there are many OT narratives that were typologies of the NT. They would not detract at all.
Newer saints: I’m not sure what that would detract from the Extraordinary Form. What is it about Bl. Mother Teresa or St. Maximilian Kolbe or St. Giana Molla that would be contrary to the liturgy?
Versus populum: This is an option. It’s not a mandate for either form.
If you don’t take the option to face the people, the rest would not disturb the structure of the EF at all. I’ll give you a simple example. One reason that in my community we do not have exclusive EF is because of the calendar. Our Franciscan saints are not all in the EF calendar. It’s a real headache trying to make it fit. Whereas, the Franciscan Missal has all of our saints and all of our feasts and solemnities. But the Franciscan Missal was written for the OF. We don’t have one for the EF. Unless we leave out the Franciscan saints, demote some from a solemnity to a 3rd class feast, or move some to another date using the EF Roman Missal is difficult. If the EF missal had the propers for the newer saints and the appendices for the major orders of men, it would work.
One can’t assume that religious and clergy “don’t get it”. One also has to understand that the major orders of men have always played a major role in shaping liturgy. It’s not something that one can suddenly take away from them. Shaping liturgy is part of their vocation. It comes as a package deal along with the life of prayer of the community. The community’s life of prayer serves several ends.
- The salvation of the religious themselves.
- The salvation of the Church
- Is the model for the Church to follow.
It’s too easy to say that one wishes that the mainstream clergy and religious “would mind its own business”. Liturgy is its business.
That would drive me batty. Their called rubrics, because it means “red”. Do the red and say the black. Period.
I’m not sure how many people you know with this belief. I know none.
J
JReducation
Guest
That’s not a problem. What I was referring to is the constant erroneous statement made by many that Pope Pius meant to bind the future Church to the Tridentine Form as he promulgated it. This was not the case. He uses terms such as “perpetuity” and “anathemas” applied to those who don’t have the authority to change the liturgy and attempt to do so. It would never occur to him to try to include future popes in this decree. The man was a saint. He was extremely humble. He was a Dominican Friar. He was well educated and understood how law works.
Red is mine.
This is very important. As St. Francis would often remind the brothers. We are not always going to be satisfied, nor is everything going to be satisfactory. The heart of the poor man accepts what he considers imperfections as an invitation to embrace holy poverty. Poverty is not simply the absence of material possessions. That part is easy. The absence of what we want, desire, need, or love is true poverty. Surrender to poverty with the love that Christ surrendered is the highest form of obedience. God often calls us to accept imperfection. Without imperfection we cannot appreciate the perfection of God.
F
floresco
Guest
J
JReducation
Guest
I don’t think that he used the term to mean the same as the poster did. I’m just judging from other things that he has said about the need for correction of problems that have crept into the liturgy. In other words, I don’t think that he means to say that the liturgy should be a static thing that can never be touched. His constant preoccupation seems to be that people not insert or delete and that they not make the liturgy a performance. But it certainly can be reshaped and tweaked by the proper authorities.
F
floresco
Guest
I understood the poster and Cardinal Ratzinger to be making similar points, but I could be wrong.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Are you referring to the responsorial between readings which is repeated in the OF, almost like a refrain in music? So if you remember very little after the two readings, at least you should remember that responsorial. Just saying.
BTW, as far as the Gospel readings go, don’t forget the Mass preceded the writings of New Testament. And preceded the many translations of the OT. Thus my earlier comment about the Mass not being Bible school. And just to be clear, when we talk about THE Bible, we’re talking about one English translation of all the books the Church compiled. Many dislike certain translations of certain passages and this IMO distorts the meaning of Mass altogether.
J
jwinch2
Guest
Yes, and the entrance antiphons, offertory antiphons, communion antiphons, etc.
Discussion of translations is an entirely separate issue.
G
GangGreen
Guest
I think the next step eventually will to be a have hybrid type mass. It would be interesting to see how it eventually happens.
I think it would be interesting to see the Mass in a way where it’s like the OF today in the “Liturgy of the Word.” All in English where the Priest faces the people all of the responses in English, three readings, etc. Then after the prayer of the faithful and such, when we get to the presentation of the gifts and the beginning of the “Liturgy of the Eucharist” the priest faces ad orientem and the rest of the Mass is in Latin using more of the language of the EF mass.
It would highlight the reverence of the consecration and the importance of the Eucharist while still maintaining the feeling of “community” and participation of the laity in the “Liturgy of the Word”
I think it would be interesting to see the Mass in a way where it’s like the OF today in the “Liturgy of the Word.” All in English where the Priest faces the people all of the responses in English, three readings, etc. Then after the prayer of the faithful and such, when we get to the presentation of the gifts and the beginning of the “Liturgy of the Eucharist” the priest faces ad orientem and the rest of the Mass is in Latin using more of the language of the EF mass.
It would highlight the reverence of the consecration and the importance of the Eucharist while still maintaining the feeling of “community” and participation of the laity in the “Liturgy of the Word”
Q
QuestingKnight
Guest
There’s no “have” about it. There’s no need. Except, I think, in the minds of liturgical nerds.
See, a mass is supposed to be a sacred rite. For a sacred rite, the Roman rite has undergone extraordinary changes. The further liberties taken by local clergy help to breed contempt. If it can change so drastically and you can’t be sure what you’re going to get when you go to a different parish, why should you take it seriously? Especially when Father is wishing Happy Birthdays at the end of mass. It all adds up.
That’s what I mean by getting away from the idea of mass as personal theatre: something performed towards a publlic, where the actors add their personal touches. The congregation then behave like an audience. Turn up, tune out, go home.
I think the OF caters to those who want something friendly and Supper-centred and the EF those who want something more traditional and impersonal. There’s no point mixing them, unless you want more confusion in the Church.
Traditionalists can see what is happening in churches that say the OF, decade by decade. They don’t want that. That’s why they go to the EF!
M
mgsk
Guest
Precisely. Even if a hybrid liturgy was offered, I would drive further to seek out a TLM. I’m not against organic development - not in the slightest. But such a liturgy would still be an “on-the-spot product,” even if it was a little less banal.
J
jwinch2
Guest
The only changes to the EF of the Mass that I see those who self-identify as traditionalists being welcoming of would be if an earlier Missal was used, but am highly suspect of them accepting any sort of amalgam between the OF and the EF. That’s why I suggested earlier to just leave the EF alone and to focus on the resurgence of a rite in the vernacular such as the Sarum. It would not be hard at all to bring that into use with the 3 year cycle, additional readings, etc. but we would still end up with a reverent Mass in the vernacular language, and those who prefer the EF could still have it.
Y
YoungTradCath
Guest
Well this simply begs the question, why not just reorder the OF a bit, add somethings that were taken out, chuck the things that were tried in good faith but haven’t worked? If the Sarum Rite were reintroduced–and IIRC parts of this are going into the new Ordinariate liturgies that are being crafted, very exciting!–then the only Roman Rite would be the “EF,” in effect there would be no "E"F anymore. The Latin Church would have a Roman Rite and a Sarum Rite, unless the Sarum Rite were renamed the OF of the Roman Rite.
One little tidbit that is so ironic to me is that the vernacular languages were introduced at the exact point in history when the world started to become rapidly less vernacular. So odd, I don’t get it.
One thing I’d also like to point out is that the EF celebrated in a monastery is quite austere, believe it or not. A Solemn EF in a stone monastery church is quite interesting. You see the complexities of the rubrics juxtaposed against the relative simplicity of the vestments and decoration and the result is almost mystical, almost iconic.
The EF is usually imagined to be a gussied up liturgy that belongs in a Baroque salon somewhere with powdered wigs, and yes, there is that “flavor” of it, but there is also what I think of as a more monastic flavor of it, which is quite nice.
- Status