OF / NO fans: would you prefer this?

[belgianwaffles9]

Just a thought I had today, and I thought I’d post it here to see what kind of feedback it gets.

Those of you who prefer the Novus Ordo (Ordinary Form): If it were allowed, would you prefer the use of a vernacular translation of the Tridentine Mass (EF) over the current usage of the Novus Ordo?

I would like to hear different reasons either way. Especially for those who might NOT support a vernacular translation of the Tridentine Mass over the Novus Ordo, please explain your preference in terms of history, Tradition, and the hermeneutic of continuity.

 

[thistle]

Just a thought I had today, and I thought I’d post it here to see what kind of feedback it gets.

Those of you who prefer the Novus Ordo (Ordinary Form): If it were allowed, would you prefer the use of a vernacular translation of the Tridentine Mass (EF) over the current usage of the Novus Ordo?

I would like to hear different reasons either way. Especially for those who might NOT support a vernacular translation of the Tridentine Mass over the Novus Ordo, please explain your preference in terms of history, Tradition, and the hermeneutic of continuity.

By definition the Tridentine Mass is the Latin Mass. If you have it in the vernacular it would no longer be the Tridentine Mass.

 

[peregrinus_WA]

For me, it is not Latin vs Vernacular or even changes in the EF Mass. What I would like to see changed in the OF Mass is:

1. 
   *]Incorporate much the Ordinary (i.e. flow and form) of the EF Mass including the prayers but make them audible. Definitly keep both the High and Low Masses.
   *]Allow for active responses from the faithful that are reserved for Altar Servers. This will also include the Confiteor, Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, the Pater Noster, and the Agnus Dei. (I think I will definitely get flamed for this one )
   *]Keep the reading cycles in the OF Mass and even expand it a little (the form will have to be altered slightly to incorporate the extra readings).
   *]Latin would be preferred except for the readings.
   *]Move Holy Days of Obligation back to being on the correct day. Maybe even use the old Calendar instead of the current one just to get both forms in sync.
   Mind you, I have only been to 3 EF Masses all of them being High Masses so I have yet to experience a Low Mass (which I am not sure is even used at my parish)

 

[EasterJoy]

For me, it is not Latin vs Vernacular or even changes in the EF Mass. What I would like to see changed in the OF Mass is:

1. 
   *]Incorporate much the Ordinary (i.e. flow and form) of the EF Mass including the prayers but make them audible. Definitly keep both the High and Low Masses.
   *]Allow for active responses from the faithful that are reserved for Altar Servers. This will also include the Confiteor, Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, the Pater Noster, and the Agnus Dei. (I think I will definitely get flamed for this one )
   *]Keep the reading cycles in the OF Mass and even expand it a little (the form will have to be altered slightly to incorporate the extra readings).
   *]Latin would be preferred except for the readings.
   *]Move Holy Days of Obligation back to being on the correct day. Maybe even use the old Calendar instead of the current one just to get both forms in sync.
   Mind you, I have only been to 3 EF Masses all of them being High Masses so I have yet to experience a Low Mass (which I am not sure is even used at my parish)

1. 
   If no one cared except for me, and the TLM was going to be made to suit me, with the OF still available:
   1–plus/minus on that one. I could go either way
   2–yes
   3–yes
   4–I would suggest that any changeable prayers would be in the vernacular. (Major liturgies, particularly Triduum, excepted.)
   5–Make the Holy Days the same in the entire Church
   
   Having said that, I think the least that can be done for those who prefer the TLM is to leave it alone. Let the OF be conformed to a small degree by the local bishop and changed to a larger degree where deemed necessary by the Pope to meet the particularities of his day. Meanwhile, leave the EF alone.
   
   I think it would be better to leave the EF as is, but to add certain deleted parts of the EF back into now-shortened versions that are in the OF, in the vernacular, as an option, possibly with the norm being ad orientum. It might make the EF more accessible while highlighting the depth of meaning in the OF in a new way.
   
   After all, there are complexities in both forms that are underappreciated. A difference is that the EF makes all that you don’t know much more obvious. (IMHO )
   
   I think both forms are valid, so my reasoning is mostly pastoral and catechetical.

 

[EasterJoy]

If no one cared except for me, and the TLM was going to be made to suit me, with the OF still available:
1–plus/minus on that one. I could go either way
2–yes
3–yes
4–I would suggest that any changeable prayers would be in the vernacular. (Major liturgies, particularly Triduum, excepted.)
5–Make the Holy Days the same in the entire Church

Having said that, I think the least that can be done for those who prefer the TLM is to leave it alone. Let the OF be conformed to a small degree by the local bishop and changed to a larger degree where deemed necessary by the Pope to meet the particularities of his day. Meanwhile, leave the EF alone.

I think it would be better to leave the EF as is, but to add certain deleted parts of the EF back into now-shortened versions that are in the OF, in the vernacular, as an option, possibly with the norm being ad orientum. It might make the EF more accessible while highlighting the depth of meaning in the OF in a new way.

After all, there are complexities in both forms that are underappreciated. A difference is that the EF makes all that you don’t know much more obvious. (IMHO )

I think both forms are valid, so my reasoning is mostly pastoral and catechetical.

I misread the post I responded to, thinking these were changes that the poster wanted in the EF. Well, hey, everybody knew this was for me…but I’m glad I made it clear that in real life I don’t think that it is.

The OF has enough readings, and I think the Holy Days are already on the “right day”. The EF is fine being kept the way it is until the Lord returns. Let the OF be the one that changes, if changes are felt to be needed. But that’s just me.

What do I *really *want? Whatever the Pope decrees. That.

 

[peregrinus_WA]

I misread the post I responded to, thinking these were changes that the poster wanted in the EF. Well, hey, everybody knew this was for me…but I’m glad I made it clear that in real life I don’t think that it is.

The OF has enough readings, and I think the Holy Days are already on the “right day”. The EF is fine being kept the way it is until the Lord returns. Let the OF be the one that changes, if changes are felt to be needed. But that’s just me.

What do I *really *want? Whatever the Pope decrees. That.

I forgot to add:

1. 
   *]Ad Orientum
   *]Communion on the tongue while kneeling at the altar rail.
   Umm…wait a minute…My parish already does that at the OF Mass

 

[Ghoti]

Lord, I wish I had experience with the EF, so I could answer this question. I’ve never been.

As such, I am having trouble keeping track of sung vs not-sung Mass, or High Mass vs Low Mass (outside of physics, anyway).

Can someone please explain what the main diffs are between all these forms, given I’ve only ever seen the OF? Just how alien would it seem to a feller like myself to turn up at a sung Novus Ordo, or a TLM (ancient usage) of the Oratorians of St Philip Neri?

The impression I get is that there is a somewhat bigger difference between the OF and EF than just language or the size of the bishop’s mitre.

 

[Volodymyr_988]

Just a thought I had today, and I thought I’d post it here to see what kind of feedback it gets.

Those of you who prefer the Novus Ordo (Ordinary Form): If it were allowed, would you prefer the use of a vernacular translation of the Tridentine Mass (EF) over the current usage of the Novus Ordo?

I would like to hear different reasons either way. Especially for those who might NOT support a vernacular translation of the Tridentine Mass over the Novus Ordo, please explain your preference in terms of history, Tradition, and the hermeneutic of continuity.

Yes, a hundred times yes! This is the same complaint that I hear from the “old timers.”

Well, fine if they wanted the Mass in English, but why did they have to change it? Couldn’t they have put the “Old Mass” in English as it was?

Their words not mine, I wouldn’t refer to it as “The Old Mass.”

I am all for the OF to be replaced by a vernacular EF. I believe this is the Sarum Usage that the former Anglicans use.

 

[Spiller]

Just a thought I had today, and I thought I’d post it here to see what kind of feedback it gets.

Those of you who prefer the Novus Ordo (Ordinary Form): If it were allowed, would you prefer the use of a vernacular translation of the Tridentine Mass (EF) over the current usage of the Novus Ordo?

I would like to hear different reasons either way. Especially for those who might NOT support a vernacular translation of the Tridentine Mass over the Novus Ordo, please explain your preference in terms of history, Tradition, and the hermeneutic of continuity.

What I would really is for people to call it what it is – the Mass of Paul VI – the Pauline Mass.

No, I would not prefer the EF in the vernacular. Language is one of the few things the EF has going for it. Change it to the vernacular and it becomes categorically inferior to the OF.

 

[LilyM]

Not a bit. What I’d like is a retranslation of the OF, as His Holiness is proposing, to eliminate some of the poorer and more fuzzy language (‘for many’, for example, and include more direct reference to the sacrificial nature of the Mass) but to me there’s no point in translating the EF into English.

What does the OF have going for it? It’s Calvary, and Jesus is present. That’s the only thing it need have going for it, and trumps anything else you could point to in terms of history, Tradition, continuity or the like. I’d point out that mandatory priestly celibacy seems to have had little justification in terms of history, Tradition or continuity, and was a sudden (and not easily understood or accepted) change for most priests.

Similarly with the original REMOVAL of options such as communion in the hand and of the chalice for the laity. How is their removal justified in terms of history, Tradition or continuity? Weren’t they purely removed for practical reasons (ie concern for possible abuse of the Eucharist?) Why can’t we make the prayers of the Mass simpler for practical reasons as well?

How I would justify the OF additionally is that, properly celebrated and not abused, it has simplicity and accessibility going for it. I’m gonna get flamed for this but there is nothing inherently wrong with keeping things simple, as long as it’s done properly.

Someone on another thread was saying changing the Kyrie from nine repetitions to three lost symbolism since nine meant three times for each member of the Trinity as well as the nine choirs of angels. To my mind that’s overkill. What’s wrong with three repetitions, which has the symbolism of ONCE for each member of the Trinity? And once for each of the Archangels (Michael, Gabriel and Raphael), if one must see angelic symbolism in it (personally I have no idea what angels, either individually or in choirs, have to do with the Kyrie anyway )

 

[Spiller]

…What does the OF have going for it? It’s Calvary, and Jesus is present. That’s the only thing it need have going for it, and trumps anything else you could point to in terms of history, Tradition, continuity or the like. I’d point out that mandatory priestly celibacy seems to have had little justification in terms of history, Tradition or continuity, and was a sudden (and not easily understood or accepted) change for most priests.

I wish more would realize that.

Similarly with the original REMOVAL of options such as communion in the hand and of the chalice for the laity. How is their removal justified in terms of history, Tradition or continuity? Weren’t they purely removed for practical reasons (ie concern for possible abuse of the Eucharist?) Why can’t we make the prayers of the Mass simpler for practical reasons as well?

Lack of historical knowledge of the Mass by many who attack the OF plays a large part here…

How I would justify the OF additionally is that, properly celebrated and not abused, it has simplicity and accessibility going for it. I’m gonna get flamed for this but there is nothing inherently wrong with keeping things simple, as long as it’s done properly.

The OF has plenty of licit options though. Employ all the most formal ones and you have a Mass that is every bit as reverent and solemn as the most high-falootin’ EF.

Someone on another thread was saying changing the Kyrie from nine repetitions to three lost symbolism since nine meant three times for each member of the Trinity as well as the nine choirs of angels. To my mind that’s overkill. What’s wrong with three repetitions, which has the symbolism of ONCE for each member of the Trinity? And once for each of the Archangels (Michael, Gabriel and Raphael), if one must see angelic symbolism in it (personally I have no idea what angels, either individually or in choirs, have to do with the Kyrie anyway )

Exactly. Often time the change itself is what bothers some, not the substance of the change.

 

[bpbasilphx]

By definition the Tridentine Mass is the Latin Mass. If you have it in the vernacular it would no longer be the Tridentine Mass.

In some dioceses of Croatian, the Tridentine Mass was celebrated in Slavonic for centuries before Vatican II.

 

[ethelzguy]

Those of you who prefer the Novus Ordo (Ordinary Form): If it were allowed, would you prefer the use of a vernacular translation of the Tridentine Mass (EF) over the current usage of the Novus Ordo?

From what you have written above, it sounds like you are referring to the Mass of 1965-69.

Our parish currently does the Preface, Sanctus, Mystery of Faith, Doxology, Pater Noster, and Agnus Dei in Latin.

 

[ethelzguy]

By definition the Tridentine Mass is the Latin Mass. If you have it in the vernacular it would no longer be the Tridentine Mass.

What did we do from 65-69 then?

 

[dang71]

my parents have always told me that when the Mass was exclusively in latin, most people would just go and stand there and have no idea what was really going on. for the majority of the population of the world, IMO, latin is too much of a barrier to the faith. i don’t care what mass is used, so long as it is in the vernacular, it is faithful to the teachings of Christ and the church, and i can actually hear what the priest is saying.

 

[SenorSalsa]

If offered with the Reverenece most EF masses are offered, and as it was originally prescribed, the OF would look very similiar to the EF, and can be said in Vernacular. It would be Ad Orientum, Incense would be used, kneeling and recieving on the tongue, candles and alter crosses.

Basically the only really noticible difference i could think of would be the prayers at the foot of the altar

 

[ethelzguy]

my parents have always told me that when the Mass was exclusively in latin, most people would just go and stand there and have no idea what was really going on.

Sad, but true.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Ethelzguy has it right. A translation of the TLM was used from 65 -69. It wasn’t done across the board all at once in my parish. It was “effective” two weeks from now we will no longer sing the Gloria in Latin.

I’d also like to point out that while the servers said the responses in a Low Mass, the congregation did respond in a High Mass or Solemn High Mass. We did sing the Gloria; we did recite the Creed; we did sing the Sanctus, Pater Noster and Agnus Dei prior to 1965.

And it was strange going from Latin to English just as it is strange for those who are not used to it go from English to Latin.

 

[belgianwaffles9]

Phew… since this is my thread, i feel like i should reply to everything Oh boy, here goes…

By definition the Tridentine Mass is the Latin Mass. If you have it in the vernacular it would no longer be the Tridentine Mass.

No; as was already pointed out, it was said in Slavonic in Croatia. Besides, the Tridentine mass is so much more than language - its the prayers and the symbolism.

For me, it is not Latin vs Vernacular or even changes in the EF Mass. What I would like to see changed in the OF Mass is:

1. • Incorporate much the Ordinary (i.e. flow and form) of the EF Mass including the prayers but make them audible. Definitly keep both the High and Low Masses.
   • Allow for active responses from the faithful that are reserved for Altar Servers. This will also include the Confiteor, Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, the Pater Noster, and the Agnus Dei. (I think I will definitely get flamed for this one )
   • Keep the reading cycles in the OF Mass and even expand it a little (the form will have to be altered slightly to incorporate the extra readings).
   • Latin would be preferred except for the readings.
   • Move Holy Days of Obligation back to being on the correct day. Maybe even use the old Calendar instead of the current one just to get both forms in sync.
     Mind you, I have only been to 3 EF Masses all of them being High Masses so I have yet to experience a Low Mass (which I am not sure is even used at my parish)

1. 
   That is pretty similar to what I would like to see as well. I think a good way to “reform the reform” and combine the OF and EF into one form would be to allow vernacular options into the low mass, and some parts of the Missa Cantata, but to leave the Solemn High Mass completely unchanged
   

   What I would really is for people to call it what it is – the Mass of Paul VI – the Pauline Mass.

   Its own documents called it Novus Ordo, and the Pope calls it what it REALLY is: the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. So both of those terms are good enough for me and i see nothing disrispectful in either or them. Pauline Mass is fine, too, i’m just more used to using the other terms.
   

   No, I would not prefer the EF in the vernacular. Language is one of the few things the EF has going for it. Change it to the vernacular and it becomes categorically inferior to the OF.

   Please explain why you think the Ordinary Form, the Pauline Mass, would be superior to the Extraordinary Form were it in the vernacular. Is it something with the prayers or the rubrics?
   

   What does the OF have going for it? It’s Calvary, and Jesus is present. That’s the only thing it need have going for it, and trumps anything else you could point to in terms of history, Tradition, continuity or the like.

   Yes, true. But the Tridentine mass ALSO has Calvary, and Jesus Present. So thats a bit of a moot point. Since that is true of the Extraordinary AND ordinary forms, I want to compare the OTHER parts of the forms. The Tridentine mass has calvary, but ALSO history, tradition, continuity, and the like.
   

   I’d point out that mandatory priestly celibacy seems to have had little justification in terms of history, Tradition or continuity, and was a sudden (and not easily understood or accepted) change for most priests.

   Yes, priestly celibacy is not a divine mandate, but rather something the Church decided would be beneficial. I agree with the Church. Priestly celibacy is, i think, a good idea, because I would not wish my Priests, who face an increadibly hard job already, to be further burdened by caring for a family. Both are increadibly hard jobs which demand one’s full attention. Either his parish flock or his family would suffer at the hands of the other, that would be unfair to them. The few priests who are married with a family, mostly converts, face increadibly difficulty, and my prayers go out to them.
   

   Similarly with the original REMOVAL of options such as communion in the hand and of the chalice for the laity. How is their removal justified in terms of history, Tradition or continuity? Weren’t they purely removed for practical reasons (ie concern for possible abuse of the Eucharist?) Why can’t we make the prayers of the Mass simpler for practical reasons as well?

   Early Church fathers CONDEMNED receiving communion in the hand very early on in Church history.
   • ST. SIXTUS I (115-125). Prohibited the faithful from even touching the Sacred Vessels; * POPE ST. EUTYCHIAN (275-283). Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand; * ST. BASIL THE GREAT, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH (330-379). “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in time of persecution.” St. Basil considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault. * COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree * and MANY, many, more.
   Furthermore, i think, apart from any historical reasons, it is good to disallow communion in the hand because it does remove the possibility to abuse. Why do you not feel that is a good idea. Besides, i am not so presumptious as to feel that my unworthy hands should ever come into contact with Christ’s true body and blood.
   

   How I would justify the OF additionally is that, properly celebrated and not abused, it has simplicity and accessibility going for it. I’m gonna get flamed for this but there is nothing inherently wrong with keeping things simple, as long as it’s done properly.

   I wont flame you, because you’re not wrong. But the OF can have a great deal of pomp and circumstance, too, just as much as the EF. And, on the flip side, the Low Mass in the EF has, perhaps, even greater austerity and simplicity than the OF. So simplicity is shared by both forms, so lets compare the things that the two forms DON’T share in common here.
   

   Someone on another thread was saying changing the Kyrie from nine repetitions to three lost symbolism since nine meant three times for each member of the Trinity as well as the nine choirs of angels. To my mind that’s overkill. What’s wrong with three repetitions, which has the symbolism of ONCE for each member of the Trinity? And once for each of the Archangels (Michael, Gabriel and Raphael), if one must see angelic symbolism in it (personally I have no idea what angels, either individually or in choirs, have to do with the Kyrie anyway )

   Why do you think thats overkill? Is it really possibly to worship God too much? It almost seemed like you were implying that when I first read your post. I know you’re not, but it seems pretty close. And on your Archangel thing, we have no idea how many there are, so that symbolism isn’t necessarily true.
   

   Lack of historical knowledge of the Mass by many who attack the OF plays a large part here…

   HAHA! Good one! thats really funny…
   

   The OF has plenty of licit options though. Employ all the most formal ones and you have a Mass that is every bit as reverent and solemn as the most high-falootin’ EF.

   Well, i think even the most solemn OF celebration is a bit behind the EF, but i completely agree that when the OF is celebrated fully, as it should be, it is a beautiful expression of our Catholic faith. I was blessed to attend such an OF mass this very morning, and loved it.
   

   From what you have written above, it sounds like you are referring to the Mass of 1965-69.
   
   Our parish currently does the Preface, Sanctus, Mystery of Faith, Doxology, Pater Noster, and Agnus Dei in Latin.

   Yes, that is the inspiration for the idea, since that is what Vatican II actually called for. We all have to remember, regardless of its perceived strenghts or weaknesses, that the Ordinary Form was NOT really a product of Vatican II. It was written by a small group of clergy, and promulgated AFTER the council, and to no small amount of objection.
   
   And I am very glad your parish celebrated mass that way. Mine isn’t quite there yet, but its getting closer.
   

   my parents have always told me that when the Mass was exclusively in latin, most people would just go and stand there and have no idea what was really going on. for the majority of the population of the world, IMO, latin is too much of a barrier to the faith. i don’t care what mass is used, so long as it is in the vernacular, it is faithful to the teachings of Christ and the church, and i can actually hear what the priest is saying.

   I’ve heard quite the opposite story from other people. I’m sure that for uninterested people, mass was uninteresting. If you don’t try to get something out of it, you wont. Latin is no barrier to faith when one can easily follow along in a daily missal. Besides, having to actually take the time and effort to follow along is a lot more involving than just passively watching. Thats why I often follow along with the missal in the OF, even though I’ve memorized it pretty much back to front. Besides, mass was said in Latin almost everywhere up until 60 years ago… All of the countless saints, martyrs, and other blessed and venerable faithful must not have been TOO terribly obstructed by the Tridentine Mass. I dont understand why so many people seem to think that suddenly we are too simple and stupid to ever undstand what other people could for hundreds and hundreds of years.

 

[belgianwaffles9]

Ha. Phew. Now that I’ve got that out of the way, here is what I would like to see in an ideal world. Basically, this is what I would do if i were pope (which is MOST unlikely ) Stay with me as i immagine here. I welcome comments and suggestions about my little thought experiment.

I would unify the OF and EF into one, unified, missal, using the Missal of 1962 (the Tridentine Rite) as a starting point.

For starters, i might undo some of the revisions to the tridentine missal from the 50s and 60s. Maybe.

My imaginary new missal would retain the distinction between a low mass, a sung mass, and a high mass.

The high mass would be exactly the same, with no changes.

The Low mass and missa cantata would have vernacular options, the low mass having a bit more. The Propers of the mass could be said in the vernacular, excpet maybe on rare, very solem occasions.

In prayers of the priest would be audible. The faithful would have the option of singing along with the Schola the parts such as the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Agnus Dei, the Credo, etc…

The faithful would respond to the priest at all the times the altar boy would, since the altar boy does so to represent the faithful. Thus was done in the tridentine rite years before Vatican II.

So what do we all think about that? I see no reason that wouldnt satisfy everyone in some way.