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.
Going back to the idea of mutual enrichment, this is as good a place as any to start. If parishes and dioceses adopted a good religious formation program for adult faith formators, all of this can be taught. Adult faith formators, are adults who lead faith formation such as DRE’s, teachers in CCD, RCIA, and RCIT, youth ministers, and others who are in the field of formation of the laity. Most of these are laymen who lack formation themselves. God bless them for stepping up to the plate and volunteering. They still need formation.
This is an area that should be included so that when a question comes up about the mass in either form, they can offer an explanation instead of becoming defensive or offensive about one form or the other. How many people actually know that in many monasteries the monks did not face East, but rather the sanctuary is on the eastern wall. But the monks either face each other or are positioned in a circle around the altar? How many people know that there there was often a monastery church in a community that served the laity and the monks?
For example, Gregorian Chant comes to us from monasticism. All of the mendicants, except the Franciscans, took it with them to the people. Franciscans introduced hymns into the mass, instead of Gregorian music. Long before Trent you already had Gregorian music in most churches and local music in Franciscan churches. However, since the Franciscans were the largest religious family in the Church, they were almost 1/3 of the churches in Latin Europe. There were always these two elements.
What’s really exciting to see is that the Tridentine Form was really the Franciscan form from about 1209 until the time of St. Pius V. It was not that common among other religious or among secular clergy. Yet, the Franciscans did not use Gregorian Chant and other forms of the mass did. St. Pius V took the Franciscan’s mass, added Gregorian Chant from the Benedictine tradition and added the prayers at the foot of the altar plus a few other things. The most discernable change that he added was Gregorian Chant. That’s when the Tridentine form was born. It was really a modification of what was called the Pope’s Mass, which was rarely used and it allegedly goes back to the time of the Apostles. However, it had been shelved for a very long time until Francis introduced it again.
The switch transfer of Gregorian Chant to this older form is a wonderful example of one form of the mass enriching the other. The mass that the Benedictines of the time celebrated did not look anything like the Tridentine mass. It was much more austere.
The mass the the Franciscans and Augustinians were left with was the mother of the Tridentine Form, which was also austere, but without Gregorian Chant. It is this form of the mass that the revised form of Pope Paul VI tried to recover. Again, allegedly, this form goes back to the Apostles. But the truth is that this form gave birth to the Tridentine Form. We have this back and forth movement through history where forms enrich other forms. Of course, just like today, there were also arguments about “My mass is better than your mass.” Such arguments were ridiculous then and are ridiculous today.
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.
I think this should be part of formation in the liturgy. I wouldn’t exclude discussion on the forms. The problem here is going to be that many lay people on the extremes, radical traditionalists and radical progressives (I hate labels) are not going to want to hear this. They need to hear it more than anyone else. I have been under fire by both groups many times. It’s funny, because the one time that the pro-women priests Catholics and the anti-OF Catholics get together is to reject the idea that religious life has anything to contribute to the liturgical life of the Church. Both sides have forgotten that the religious orders, especially the older ones: monks and friars, to this day control the liturgy. Neither side has much use for religious who disagree with it. Which is the majority of monks and friars. You should see the hate mail that we get from both parties. You would think that people have better things to do right? Wrong.
