OF mass

[ProVobis]

I believe that the Latin Mass will eventually be discontinued…

That’s what Bugnini said in the 60’s, wasn’t it?

 

[MontChevalier]

Ok, can someone PLEASE explain to me what OF mass is? And what OF means?

Thank you.
-MontChevalier

 

[Paxvobis]

I don’t think the Latin Mass is just going to go away. Everybody thought that’d happen when they made the change to the OF, yet 40 years later it’s only growing.

That said, I don’t think that we are going to see the EF become the Ordinary Form once again. I also don’t see the EF faithful accepting a compromise missal.

In the end, therefore, I don’t think any of us know what will happen. It certainly will be interesting to see this whole thing play out.

 

[OraLabora]

I think this would be the very best solution. It would end a lot of conflicts and make for a more unified Christianity, which is what the Lord Jesus prayed for.

I’m not sure this would be acceptable to those who love the Latin Mass, though. I fear what could happen if people get their love for the Latin Mass out of proportion to their love for their Lord Jesus. But I’m sure that most Catholics would be obedient to Holy Mother Church and my fears are just silly.

Of course the OF can and is licitly celebrated in Latin, I have attended a few. I find that the maintaining of two rites is as you note divisive, and an occasion of sin for many who argue and question the Church because of it. Reverting to the EF and no OF would even be better than keeping both rites, but you would have to have a vernacular version of it. Most of the folks here see Latin from a Western European point of view. However the Mass has grown beyond to places like India, Korea, Vietnam, etc. where Latin would be a formidable challenge for the laity especially. Their languages aren’t anywhere near Western languages much less Latin. They don’t even use the same alphabets. I am of French-speaking origin so Latin is no special challenge for me, it’s easy to understand the different parts of the Mass. But that may not be the case in many places in the world.

That said I would like to see the OF offered in Latin in more places.

 

[OraLabora]

That’s what Bugnini said in the 60’s, wasn’t it?

Can this be documented? It certainly isn’t what Sacrosanctum Concilium says, and that’s the official document of the Second Vatican Council concerning the reform of the Mass.

 

[ProVobis]

Can this be documented? It certainly isn’t what Sacrosanctum Concilium says, and that’s the official document of the Second Vatican Council concerning the reform of the Mass.

That’s why I asked the question. But you inspired me to look it up and I did find this:

Liturgy Destroyed

The liturgical heritage of the Roman Rite may well be the most precious treasure of our entire Western civilisation, something to be cherished and preserved for future generations. The Liturgy Constitution of the Second Vatican Council stated that: “In faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognised rites to be of equal right and dignity, that she wishes to preserve them in future and foster them in every way.”

How has this command of the Council been obeyed? The answer can be obtained from Father Joseph Gelineau SJ, a Council peritus, and an enthusiastic proponent of the postconciliar revolution. In his book Demain la liturgie, he stated with commendable honesty, concerning the Mass as most Catholics know it today: “To tell the truth it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.” Even Archbishop Bugnini would have found it difficult to explain how something can be preserved and fostered by destroying it.

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/bugnini.html

 

[ProVobis]

That said I would like to see the OF offered in Latin in more places.

I would like to see some Latin in every OF Mass but with all this hype with the new English translation, I’m not too optimistic we’ll be seeing more Latin in the English OF in the near future. I hope I’m wrong, though.

 

[NewsTheMan]

I would like to see some Latin in every OF Mass but with all this hype with the new English translation, I’m not too optimistic we’ll be seeing more Latin in the English OF in the near future. I hope I’m wrong, though.

Every OF Mass should have Latin. What was originally envisioned was vernacular only for those parts of the Mass that were “dialogue” between priest and congregation. The rest was supposed to remain in Latin (Greek for the Kyrie), most especially the Canon.

 

[Usige]

I don’t think the OF will exist as we know it in 100 years. Why? because every 5 - 10 years a new batch of liturgist envisions a new and novel way to “enhance” the mass.

I don’t expect the EF will become the norm again either. The best I could see is for very explicit instructions for the mass being propagated and enforced to curtail the innovations that plague the church now.

 

[Usige]

I would like to see some Latin in every OF Mass but with all this hype with the new English translation, I’m not too optimistic we’ll be seeing more Latin in the English OF in the near future. I hope I’m wrong, though.

I would hope so too, but having just sat through a revised version of “The Mass of Renewal” played with full contemporary band I’m not hopeful.

The parish had 20+ first-class relics in the nave for veneration and all I could think was how many of the saints that were associate with those relics were weeping in heaven for what has been done in the “spirit of Vatican II”.

 

[Usige]

Or the Vatican can simply put its foot down on the issue of OF abuses. Then let the OF be what Vatican II intended it to be. Not what some “innovative” liturgists twisted it into.

I wish it were that simple. The Vatican has told the bishops to clean up their houses on liturgical abuses, but many have not done so or they themselves have been ignored. So many parishes are ran by laity that are more concerned with their personal preferences than what Mother Church asks.

I am hopeful that over the next 20 years that the younger generation can make headway. Most seminarians and priest that I know who have been ordained in the past couple years are very orthodox so I can hope they will return the OF to what it was intended to be. I still remember a newly minted priest that chastised the Directory of Liturgy for trying to empty the holy water fonts during Lent. If only more priest would stand up to pastoral councils and liturgists. Heck I would think it a great start if they would tell Americans to stop the kumbaya session during the Our Father (aka “Hands across the parish”).

 

[Cat]

I wish it were that simple. The Vatican has told the bishops to clean up their houses on liturgical abuses, but many have not done so or they themselves have been ignored. So many parishes are ran by laity that are more concerned with their personal preferences than what Mother Church asks.

I am hopeful that over the next 20 years that the younger generation can make headway. Most seminarians and priest that I know who have been ordained in the past couple years are very orthodox so I can hope they will return the OF to what it was intended to be. I still remember a newly minted priest that chastised the Directory of Liturgy for trying to empty the holy water fonts during Lent. If only more priest would stand up to pastoral councils and liturgists. Heck I would think it a great start if they would tell Americans to stop the kumbaya session during the Our Father (aka “Hands across the parish”).

The topic of holding hands during the Our Father has come up hundreds of times on CAF since I joined, and the conclusion is always that this is not an abuse. It is an irregularity. But there is no actual rubric that forbids hand-holding in the Mass. There is also no actual rubric that allows it. So it is a gray area, and parishes understandably adapt their own practice. A parish that hold hands during the Our Father is not violating any rubric or practicing any kind of rebellion.

SO…that being said, IMO, what is needed is a very clear-cut version of the rubrics for the OF Mass, so that there are no questions. And there should be a statement to the effect that “Anything not spelled out clearly in these rubrics is up to the local authority; i.e., the bishop.”

Also, these rubrics should apply to and make practical sense in ALL countries and among all cultures and income levels, not just rich white European culture in Europe, the U.S.A., and Canada.

I think that the rubrics should actually include a list of “forbidden hymns” and musical instruments, as well as a clear statement about “secular” songs, and songs written by Protestants. It should be made clear that anything NOT on that list is acceptable for Holy Mass. AND it should make clear whether or not Gregorian chant is required in Masses, or merely suggested.

The rubrics should also make clear the dress of the laypeople for Mass.

It seems to me that in this day and age, with the wide-spread use of online technology, such a clear-cut, universal version of the rubrics could and should be available to every Catholic who is literate.

I think that a lot of the problem lies with loose language in the rubrics, which makes it possible to interpret rubrics in many different ways. This is why we have the wide variety of practices, some of which certain Catholics see as “irreverent” or “abusive.”

The abuses need to be clearly spelled out and clearly forbidden. If hand-holding during the Our Father is seen as abusive by the Magisterium, it needs to be stated clearly, and in a document that is easily available to ALL Catholics, not just canon lawyers, priests, and liturgical hobbyists.

I suspect that if such a version of the rubrics were hammered out and established, that these rubrics would be much more relaxed and “liberal” than many conservatives desire, in order to accomodate many different countries, cultures, and budgets. So be careful what you ask for, right?

.

 

[ProVobis]

Every OF Mass should have Latin. What was originally envisioned was vernacular only for those parts of the Mass that were “dialogue” between priest and congregation. The rest was supposed to remain in Latin (Greek for the Kyrie), most especially the Canon.

The documents were ambiguous on this. Some like me thought the vernacular would only apply to third world countries. After all, Trent prohibited the vulgar tongue everywhere and Vatican II stressed Latin specifically. I don’t think in 1962 there was a person who ever saw an entire English Mass similar to and competing with the Anglican or Lutheran liturgy.

It depended too on who were the envisionaries. Songwriters, translators, and publishers saw lucrative opportunities (Prior to that only one company basically published the Roman Missal. You don’t make money on standing liturgies; just saying.) while the churchgoers were resisting any changes. For the few progressives who welcomed every change (facing the people, more vernacular, standing for communion, etc.) there were an equal number if not more people who stopped going to church every Sunday. It seemed to matter nothing that they lost interest and never came back, even when the Latin Mass was restored.

 

[NewsTheMan]

The documents were ambiguous on this.

VII documents ambiguous? Shocked!

I don’t think in 1962 there was a person who ever saw an entire English Mass similar to and competing with the Anglican or Lutheran liturgy.

You’d be surprised. It was the intention of the reform of the Mass to adhere to protestant, specifically Lutheran, ideas regarding liturgical celebrations. That’s why we had a few “experts” from our non-Catholic friends giving advice on what is a Catholic liturgy. It was widely known that Paul VI wanted to create a Mass that was ‘ecumenical’ in nature.

 

[ProVobis]

It was widely known that Paul VI wanted to create a Mass that was ‘ecumenical’ in nature.

That’s probably why he was shocked that there was a petition being circulated in the early 70’s by non-Catholics (including Agatha Christie and some Anglican bishops) to restore the Latin Mass. (He granted the Indult.)

 

[ProVobis]

That said, I don’t think that we are going to see the EF become the Ordinary Form once again. I also don’t see the EF faithful accepting a compromise missal.

Although I think it would be a good thing to add prefaces to the ordinary and saints to the propers periodically in the EF. You have to start employing the Latinists, even as teachers and musicians; otherwise no one will be motivated to study Latin.

 

[Te_Deum]

I think the best immediate things that could be done with the Ordinary Form is to restore ad orientem worship, the canon in Latin and proper sacred music, the complete suppression of Communion under both species with the obvious exception of the celebrant and a rubrical obligation for communion on the tongue whilst kneeling (with the obvious allowances for those who cannot kneel).

And whilst I am at it, regarding the EF, a mandatory 5 minute period of recollection and meditation after the People’s communion for the poor altar servers like my self who carry the communion plate to kneel for a moment and enjoy Our Lord .

And for the 15 mysteries of the Most Holy Rosary to be included in the official prayer of the Church (Divine Office/Liturgy of the Hours). Enough talk of the rosary only being optional! It may remain so for laity not under obligation but it’s time to end the talk of the rosary being only an option universally. Make five decades a day mandatory for all bound to pray the prayers of the Church.

 

[OraLabora]

Every OF Mass should have Latin. What was originally envisioned was vernacular only for those parts of the Mass that were “dialogue” between priest and congregation. The rest was supposed to remain in Latin (Greek for the Kyrie), most especially the Canon.

If the Church insists on Latin/Greek for the ordinary which in the OF are typically responses of the faithful, or at least in alternance with the choir, she will handicap her mission as the Universal Church. Latin will be a major handicap to both vocations and conversions in places like Korea. This is not a good thing. Latin was established at a time when “universal” meant Europe and its colonized lands. Now “universal” includes countries that don’t even share an alphabet, let alone a language. In Asian countries, for the most part English plays a similar role that Latin once enjoyed in the West.

In the past Latin was the language of the Western Church. The Eastern Churches in or out of communion had their own languages.

I love Latin in the Mass and the Divine Office. I love Gregorian Chant. But let’s not pretend that these values will be universally accepted as the Church spreads to non-Western nations.

Perhaps we’ll still see two rites: one truly Roman one that dips into its rich patrimony of language and music and is largely confined to the West, and is at least expressed in full in monasteries or orders, but with much simplification at the parish level, and one “international” rite with more flexibility for local languages and musical traditions.

But to suggest that Latin fits all in all parts of the world strikes me as chauvinistic. If one reads Sacrosanctum Concilium it seems clear to me that the indication “where Latin can be an obstacle” clearly had the universality of the Church in mind, and this has resulted in an OF that seems too loosey-goosey and open to abuse.

Perhaps formally recognizing this and evolving a more flexible “international” rite and a tighter Roman rite out of the current situation would be the way out of the impasse. It takes a bit of a page from the idea of the Anglican Ordinariate.

I do think all the rites would have to have common elements though, in particular the same lectionaries, same canon, etc.

 

[Te_Deum]

The best answer would be for the Holy Father to erect a new sui juris particular Church in the orient.

 

[ProVobis]

In Asian countries, for the most part English plays a similar role that Latin once enjoyed in the West.

Interestingly enough, I heard one report bragging about how well some Far Easterners were learning the “English” alphabet. Talk about pomposity. Over 50% of the world uses the Latin alphabet, yet the Anglos want to claim it as their own. Too bad many haven’t seen the real “English” alphabet which got killed over 500 years ago.

google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.1066andallthat.com/images/Anglosaxonrunes.jpe&imgrefurl=http://www.1066andallthat.com/english_old/orthography_01.asp&usg=__-gGZB_N4eKwMWnEmwtXO3AyBZ9M=&h=480&w=531&sz=37&hl=en&start=0&sig2=ocHleZ_1QnLcmdscTRBGkA&zoom=1&tbnid=IIYP6jOjNrgrdM:&tbnh=120&tbnw=133&ei=blxpTbrALoa8lQezwKSCAg&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dold%2Bgermanic%2Balphabet%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26rlz%3D1T4ACAW_enUS416US416%26biw%3D1345%26bih%3D532%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=531&vpy=208&dur=16256&hovh=213&hovw=236&tx=109&ty=146&oei=blxpTbrALoa8lQezwKSCAg&page=1&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:12,s:0

That aside, if anyone is going to incorporate Roman law into its culture will need to learn a little Latin.