Mutual Enrichment of EF and OF

[porthos11]

Well this simply begs the question,

A slight hijack. Please do not abuse the phrase “begs the question” in this manner. It “raises” the question, not “begs.” “Begging the question” refers to a logical fallacy.

Back to your regular scheduled programming.

 

[jwinch2]

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.

I have been advocating for tightening up things within the OF for sometime. However, I am starting to come to the conclusion that some of those things which need to be addressed, are not likely to be complied with things as they are now.

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.

I’m not sure where you are going here.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I have been advocating for tightening up things within the OF for sometime. However, I am starting to come to the conclusion that some of those things which need to be addressed, are not likely to be complied with things as they are now.

If things cannot be tightened up via a moderate systematic restructuring of the OF and its rubrics I don’t see why anyone would think it could be bettered by the Sarum Rite, or any other rite, replacing it.

Things are getting better little by little, especially with new ordinands. In my view the next step is to systematically correct things. What I mean by that is I think many of the rubrics are unclear, not restrictive enough or whatever. It is almost as if the OF rubrics presume that one already knows how to celebrate the EF.

I’m not sure where you are going here.

Just a thought.

 

[jwinch2]

If things cannot be tightened up via a moderate systematic restructuring of the OF and its rubrics I don’t see why anyone would think it could be bettered by the Sarum Rite, or any other rite, replacing it.

Agreed to a point. It is not the priests I fear in a restructuring of the rubrics of the OF, it is the laity.

 

[ProVobis]

Agreed to a point. It is not the priests I fear in a restructuring of the rubrics of the OF, it is the laity.

Don’t forget the deacons who are authorized to lead communion services, give sermons, and read the Gospels.

 

[JReducation]

I understood the poster and Cardinal Ratzinger to be making similar points, but I could be wrong.

OK, if that’s what he meant then we are all in agreement.

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.

This is a problem on which there is work being done. The first thing was to work on the missal. The next project is the lectionary. The problem with the lectionary is always gong to be the liturgical calendar. The lectionary is universal and the liturgical calendar is not. If your parish is run by one of the major orders of men, then you’re in luck, They have their own calendar with their own lectionary according to their calendar. If you belong to a parish run by one of the smaller orders or by diocesan clergy, you have to use the Roman Calendar and the Roman Lectionary. The problem is that they were not put out at the same time. I can’t see how we’re ever going to make them flow together, because the calendar is always in flux.

Don’t forget the deacons who are authorized to lead communion services, give sermons, and read the Gospels.

You lost me here. How do the deacons affect the form of the mass?

 

[YoungTradCath]

This is a problem on which there is work being done. The first thing was to work on the missal. The next project is the lectionary. The problem with the lectionary is always gong to be the liturgical calendar. The lectionary is universal and the liturgical calendar is not. If your parish is run by one of the major orders of men, then you’re in luck, They have their own calendar with their own lectionary according to their calendar. If you belong to a parish run by one of the smaller orders or by diocesan clergy, you have to use the Roman Calendar and the Roman Lectionary. The problem is that they were not put out at the same time. I can’t see how we’re ever going to make them flow together, because the calendar is always in flux.

But… my priests are Redemptorists and we use the same old Roman calendar and lectionary that most Latin Catholics do. My point isn’t about religious orders–we shall take it as granted here that they are in a different situation oftentimes–it is that the themes of the individual Masses (most of whose dates have not changed since 1969 or whatever) and the themes of the readings often don’t really go together. This is difficult because, if that is the case, why have Saints days and Marian days and days of the life of the Lord, and so on, in the first place? The effect produced is that for these Masses the priest will preach for a few minutes on Saint ___ and then for a few minutes on the readings which have nothing to do with Saint ___. It is thematically disjointed and turns the readings into some kind of pseudo-independent rite.

Now, if the calendar is always changing, perhaps a good idea would be that, from now on, they start assigning readings when new Proper antiphons and prayers are published for new Masses. If the Mass is some random feria, fine, have whatever readings seem nice. But saints’ days and feasts and solemnities beg for their own proper readings, lest the Mass be thematically inconsistent.

I do not suggest that the calendar conform to the lectionary; no, the order of the calendar seems much more important than the order of the lectionary. I do not know how the lectionary is organized, but perhaps there should be three sections of the lectionary: one set of readings for each day of the Temporale, one set of readings for days of the Sanctorale, and readings for Masses that have no assigned proper readings but which thematically align with the Mass being celebrated, ie a lectionary commons. So you would have “Mass of St. ___, Martyr” in the Missal, but this martyr does not have his own proper readings in the Sanctorale section of the lectionary so you have a note in the Missal which says, for the readings, “Use readings No. 27” in the lectionary, which have to do with martyrs. Or something like that. That way, if Saint ___ is moved in the calendar from April 17 to November 8 (hypothetically), a new edition of the lectionary, not to mention the Missal, would not be necessary, and changes in the order could be simply done on an occasional ad-hoc update basis. But if a new Mass is created which warrants creation of its own proper readings, durable inserts can be made until an update to the lectionary is done; this would likely not be very common and would be limited to truly extraordinary occasions, however

 

[ProVobis]

You lost me here. How do the deacons affect the form of the mass?

My response was to the poster who mentioned priests and laity. I presume it was in the regards to the OF but it could have been to some imagined hybrid as well.

 

[jwinch2]

My response was to the poster who mentioned priests and laity. I presume it was in the regards to the OF but it could have been to some imagined hybrid as well.

My comment was related to the fact that I am less concerned that priests will disobey a directive from Rome on a restructuring of the rubrics in the OF than I am that many in the laity will fight it tooth and nail. Judging by the reactions I have seen when a pastor tries to change only one out of three weekend Masses by merely having traditional hymns and the occasional response in Latin and Greek, I can only imagine if all Masses were required to use the Propers or the Antiphons, etc. on a permanent basis, that there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

I would guess that the overwhelming majority of deacons will fall in line with whatever their pastor does and what the directives are from their bishop.

 

[ProVobis]

Now, if the calendar is always changing, perhaps a good idea would be that, from now on, they start assigning readings when new Proper antiphons and prayers are published for new Masses. If the Mass is some random feria, fine, have whatever readings seem nice. But saints’ days and feasts and solemnities beg for their own proper readings, lest the Mass be thematically inconsistent.

I think what you’re trying to say is that for a feast like St. Patrick or the Assumption, a 3-yr cycle of different readings for the Introit, Collect, Epistle, Gradual, Gospel, Offertory, Secret, and Communion prayers wouldn’t work very well. I can’t see how they would either.

That said, I think one of the few times the 3-yr cycle is beneficial is on Palm/Passion Sunday when the different passions alternate. (Of course, one of them has to be left out.)

 

[JReducation]

But… my priests are Redemptorists and we use the same old Roman calendar and lectionary that most Latin Catholics do.

The Redemptorists are not one of the major orders of men. They’re not an order. They’re a congregation of priests. To the best of my knowledge, they don’t have their own liturgy as to the orders.

My point isn’t about religious orders–we shall take it as granted here that they are in a different situation oftentimes-

I understand that it’s not. I was using the orders an example of how the connection between lectionary and calendar should work. The orders have it down to an art form.

-it is that the themes of the individual Masses (most of whose dates have not changed since 1969 or whatever) and the themes of the readings often don’t really go together. This is difficult because, if that is the case, why have Saints days and Marian days and days of the life of the Lord, and so on, in the first place?

The conflict here is that the calendar and the lectionary were not issued at the same time. There are times when they don’t work well together. In that case, the preacher has the option of preaching from the scriptures or from the the feast day.

I agree with you, that to try to include both, when they’re not matching up can sound disjointed. So just preach to the readings or the feast. If you can find at least one word or sentence that you can use to bridge the two, that’s wonderful. That’s not always going to happen.

Now, if the calendar is always changing, perhaps a good idea would be that, from now on, they start assigning readings when new Proper antiphons and prayers are published for new Masses. If the Mass is some random feria, fine, have whatever readings seem nice. But saints’ days and feasts and solemnities beg for their own proper readings, lest the Mass be thematically inconsistent.

I do not suggest that the calendar conform to the lectionary; no, the order of the calendar seems much more important than the order of the lectionary. I do not know how the lectionary is organized, but perhaps there should be three sections of the lectionary: one set of readings for each day of the Temporale, one set of readings for days of the Sanctorale, and readings for Masses that have no assigned proper readings but which thematically align with the Mass being celebrated, ie a lectionary commons. So you would have “Mass of St. ___, Martyr” in the Missal, but this martyr does not have his own proper readings in the Sanctorale section of the lectionary so you have a note in the Missal which says, for the readings, “Use readings No. 27” in the lectionary, which have to do with martyrs. Or something like that. That way, if Saint ___ is moved in the calendar from April 17 to November 8 (hypothetically), a new edition of the lectionary, not to mention the Missal, would not be necessary, and changes in the order could be simply done on an occasional ad-hoc update basis. But if a new Mass is created which warrants creation of its own proper readings, durable inserts can be made until an update to the lectionary is done; this would likely not be very common and would be limited to truly extraordinary occasions, however

What you’re suggesting here is what happens in the breviary. Not being a liturgist, I cannot tell you if it would or would not work for the mass.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I think what you’re trying to say is that for a feast like St. Patrick or the Assumption, a 3-yr cycle of different readings for the Introit, Collect, Epistle, Gradual, Gospel, Offertory, Secret, and Communion prayers wouldn’t work very well. I can’t see how they would either.

1. My point is that for all “theme days,” to wit:

Days celebrating events in the life of the Lord
Marian days
Saints’ days
All Souls
All Saints
Funeral Masses
Lenten and Advent Sundays
etc.

there should be proper readings (truly proper or for less important saints a “saints days” commons, some for virgins, some for confessors, some for martyrs etc.)

and

the readings should be the same year to year, ie no cycle, for thematic consistency so that these days can have consistent ritual and devotional meaning and presence in the minds and hearts of Catholics.

1. For all “non theme days,” to wit:

“Ordinary” Sundays/Sundays post Epiphany and Pentecost
Ferial days

the readings can be a two- or three-year cycle because there is no specific theme to these days to begin with (and only a vague theme to Ordinary Sundays), so there is nothing lost and only everything to gain by having a cycle.

My idea is for a combination of a lectionary with some Masses that have no cycle and some that do have cycled readings. I think this is most prudent for reasons I have laid out earlier. I reject as a matter of principle that more Scripture as a percentage of the Bible is automatically and always better. At the same time, I do see value in a cycle for “non theme” days.

 

[ProVobis]

1. My point is that for all “theme days,” to wit:

Days celebrating events in the life of the Lord
Marian days
Saints’ days
All Souls
All Saints
Funeral Masses
Lenten and Advent Sundays
etc.

there should be proper readings (truly proper or for less important saints a “saints days” commons, some for virgins, some for confessors, some for martyrs etc.)

and

the readings should be the same year to year, ie no cycle, for thematic consistency so that these days can have consistent ritual and devotional meaning and presence in the minds and hearts of Catholics.

Believe it or not, some of the “themes” used to be taught in Catholic schools, we even had a short biography of each saint read every day, but it seems all with went forgotten in the late 60’s.

 

[OraLabora]

If things cannot be tightened up via a moderate systematic restructuring of the OF and its rubrics I don’t see why anyone would think it could be bettered by the Sarum Rite, or any other rite, replacing it.

Bingo. And that applies to the EF as well. Why would you think that systematic adoption of the EF as the normative for, would make priests that disobey the OF rubrics any less likely to disobey the EF rubrics? Because there are more rubrics? More chances for abuse! Or because those priests will be beaten into submission by the Pope? Or because they will just go away?

The EF is what it is today because it’s largely entrusted to priests (e.g. FSSP or even parish priests with an enthusiasm for it) who are charged with preserving it with care.

I really don’t think the EF is a magic bullet to fix all that is wrong in the Church. I do agree that we should insist that the OF should be celebrated with care. It can be done. I know it can be done. It IS done, I see it every single Sunday.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Bingo. And that applies to the EF as well. Why would you think that systematic adoption of the EF as the normative for, would make priests that disobey the OF rubrics any less likely to disobey the EF rubrics? Because there are more rubrics? More chances for abuse! Or because those priests will be beaten into submission by the Pope? Or because they will just go away?

The EF is what it is today because it’s largely entrusted to priests (e.g. FSSP or even parish priests with an enthusiasm for it) who are charged with preserving it with care.

I really don’t think the EF is a magic bullet to fix all that is wrong in the Church. I do agree that we should insist that the OF should be celebrated with care. It can be done. I know it can be done. It IS done, I see it every single Sunday.

Eh, I believe there are two sources of irreverence/inconsistency/whateveryouwanttocallit. One is that the current rubrics are not obeyed. The other source is that the OF’s rubrics are often not very clear.

The former problem is solving itself. It does not take much effort to see that with passing time and foggier memories of the 1960s and 70s the rubrics are being obeyed more and more. Additionally, newer priests are, on the whole, typically very careful celebrants and are quite scrupulous, in a good way, toward them. The latter problem will not and cannot solve itself on the local level, however.

I don’t think the EF is a magic bullet to fix all that is wrong in the [Latin] Church, but I do believe its rubrics are harder to mess up. IE, you can’t say, “Well, established contra legem practice/but it only says ‘optional’/I don’t think that’s required/I don’t like that/whatever.” There isn’t much wiggle room, you either do it right or not. There are certainly different flavors of the EF but that is usually due to genuine local development that respects the rubrics and defers to them.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Eh, I believe there are two sources of irreverence/inconsistency/whateveryouwanttocallit. One is that the current rubrics are not obeyed. The other source is that the OF’s rubrics are often not very clear.

I can attest to the latter. Because so many things are optional, they are reserved for “special” occasions, and so are rarely or never seen. This applies to things like incense, altar bells, sprinkling rites, the Confiteor, the Roman Canon (it’s been quite a few years since I’ve heard this in an OF Mass), patens used by altar servers, etc. From what I’ve seen (and this may biased because I’ve learned that Los Angeles can be very different from the rest of the world), the barest option is always chosen. Prayers and readings sung? Nope. Benediction? Maybe if it’s a First Friday, and even then sometimes not. Ad orientem? Not if your life depended on it. Latin? Only for the Agnus Dei, otherwise why are you moving us backwards?

There is a difference between simple and bare. The Council wanted a simpler Mass, but it did not want the easiest or plainest option to be the norm.

 

[ProVobis]

I really don’t think the EF is a magic bullet to fix all that is wrong in the Church. I do agree that we should insist that the OF should be celebrated with care. It can be done. I know it can be done. It IS done, I see it every single Sunday.

It’s basically a cultural thing, IMO. One cannot expect the customs (clapping, guitars, style of music, etc.) at a local Spanish Mass to be the same as a Polish Mass or an English Mass, for example. Yet, I would think most of them are done with care and considered reverent in that culture.

 

[YoungTradCath]

It’s basically a cultural thing, IMO. One cannot expect the customs (clapping, guitars, style of music, etc.) at a local Spanish Mass to be the same as a Polish Mass or an English Mass, for example. Yet, I would think most of them are done with care and considered reverent in that culture.

It’s very funny to me that some people think there is such a thing as “culture” of the “people who speak English.” There are so many races and cultures represented at our English speaking Masses that it is offensive to sing this or that cultural hymn instead of the acultural Propers.

 

[jwinch2]

b16schola.org/what-are-the-propers/

Why sing the propers?
You may be wondering why anyone bothers singing the propers. Why not stick with the same old four hymns and an occasional special piece for the choir? Here’s how the General Instruction of the Roman Missal expresses the church’s intentions for the entrance chant (Introit) and Communion, for example, in order of preference:

1. In the dioceses of the United States of America there are four options for the Entrance Chant: (1) the antiphon from the Roman Missal* or the Psalm from the Roman Gradual as set to music there or in another musical setting; (2) the seasonal antiphon and Psalm of the Simple Gradual; (3) a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) a suitable liturgical song similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.

1. In the dioceses of the United States of America there are four options for the Communion chant: (1) the antiphon from the Roman Missal* or the Psalm from the Roman Gradual as set to music there or in another musical setting; (2) the seasonal antiphon and Psalm of the Simple Gradual; (3) a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) a suitable liturgical song chosen in accordance with No. 86 above. This is sung either by the choir alone or by the choir or cantor with the people. If there is no singing, however, the Communion antiphon found in the Missal may be recited either by the faithful, or by some of them, or by a lector. Otherwise the priest himself says it after he has received Communion and before he distributes Communion to the faithful.

*Note that the antiphons from the Roman Missal (you’ll also find them in pulp missalettes) are intended for use during spoken Masses. If the Introit or Communion chant is to be sung, the text is taken from the Roman Gradual or the Simple Gradual. The two sets of antiphons—Missal and Gradual—do not always correspond. (Here’s an excellent explanation of this somewhat confusing point, from the winter 2006 issue of the journal Sacred Music.)

The church’s ideal for sung Masses is expressed in the first option: the Introit or Communion proper, for example, from the Gradual. If this is too challenging, turn to the Graduale Simplex (Simple Gradual) or any of the less-complex settings of the proper texts (examples are given below).

If this is not possible, another psalm may be substituted.

In last place is the ubiquitous “suitable liturgical song” (that is, hymn) that’s sung in 99 percent of U.S. parishes.

 

[LilyM]

I think what you’re trying to say is that for a feast like St. Patrick or the Assumption, a 3-yr cycle of different readings for the Introit, Collect, Epistle, Gradual, Gospel, Offertory, Secret, and Communion prayers wouldn’t work very well. I can’t see how they would either.

That said, I think one of the few times the 3-yr cycle is beneficial is on Palm/Passion Sunday when the different passions alternate. (Of course, one of them has to be left out.)

John’s Passion isn’t left out, it is read on Good Friday.

As for feasts - unfortunately I don’t have a Daily Missal to verify, but a lot of the feasts do seem to have apposite readings prescribed for them.

From memory I have been to daily mass on the Feast of St Matthew and lo and behold the Gospel recounted St Matthew being called by Our Lord to follow Him. And the feast of Sts Philip and James was the story of St Philip asking Jesus to show him the Father and Jesus’ wonderful response.

I hardly think these were mere coincidences.