OF Supporters Please Stand Up!

  • Thread starter Thread starter SJP
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SJP

Guest
It has become painfully obvious to anyone who has been reading this forum over the last two weeks that a certain number of staunch OF supporters/anti-EF posters have been ignoring the responses of Traditionalists.

Certain posters have mocked Traditionalists who have used the principle of Organic Development to illustrate the superiority of the EF of the Mass. When asked to provide evidence for our claims we have turned to liturgical experts such as Cardinal Ratzinger, Alcuin Reid and Klaus Gamber. Our responses have either been ignored or posters have changed the subject.

So I have few questions for the OF supporters out there:
  1. Do you recognize the validity of the principle of Organic Development and its importance to Catholic worship?
  2. Please provide one historical example of an instance in which the liturgy of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church has been reformed to the extent that it was in 1970 (the creation of the OF of the Mass)
  3. Please demonstrate (using historical examples) how the creation of the OF of the Mass could be considered an Organic Development.
 
I prefer the Byzantine liturgy. But if there is room in the Church for me and others like me, there should be room in the church for those who prefer either useage of the Roman Rite–or who like both.

2. Please provide one historical example of an instance in which the liturgy of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church has been reformed to the extent that it was in 1970 (the creation of the OF of the Mass)

**The influence of Alcuin comes to mind. (I think it’s Alcuin of York.) When Charlemagne finally received an official “Roman” sacramentary from the Pope (after years of asking for one), it was given to Alcuin to edit. Alcuin discerned that the “pure” Roman rite would only grudigingly be accepted in Charlemagne’s realms, so he added a supplement of rites, ceremonies, and prayers “dear and familiar” to the Frankish people.

This enriched and embellished “Roman a la francaise” became the foundation of the Missale Romanum.

Dom Gregory Dix in his SHAPE OF THE LITURGY goes into greater detail.**
 
I have to run to the 7-11 and grab a bag of popcorn for this one 😛
 
Oh dear.

I support the Holy Catholic Church, which includes all of her Rites and all Liturgical forms of the Mass approved by the Pope.

CC
 
SJP said:
It has become painfully obvious to anyone who has been reading this forum over the last two weeks that a certain number of staunch OF supporters/anti-EF posters have been ignoring the responses of Traditionalists.

Certain posters have mocked Traditionalists who have used the principle of Organic Development to illustrate the superiority of the EF of the Mass. When asked to provide evidence for our claims we have turned to liturgical experts such as Cardinal Ratzinger, Alcuin Reid and Klaus Gamber. Our responses have either been ignored or posters have changed the subject.

So I have few questions for the OF supporters out there:
  1. Do you recognize the validity of the principle of Organic Development and its importance to Catholic worship?
  2. Please provide one historical example of an instance in which the liturgy of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church has been reformed to the extent that it was in 1970 (the creation of the OF of the Mass)
  3. Please demonstrate (using historical examples) how the creation of the OF of the Mass could be considered an Organic Development.
Click to expand...
Okay, I’ll take your bait…😃

It is indeed, painfully obvious, that there is a definite core of folks at CAF, who spend countless hours looking for reasons to criticize the HMC and anything she has done since Vatican II.

It is also painfully obvious, that the traditionalist crowd clearly has a “us versus them” mentality. Apparently, any of us who are content with the post Vatican II church, even though we still hold many of our tradtions near and dear, are labeled modernists and liberals.

The traditionalist crowd just can’t let go of their obsession with the alleged “superiority” of the TLM over the NO. As I have stated previously, I have come to believe that many of the tradtionalist crowd have replaced Faith with Zealous Obsession.

So, on to your questions…
  1. Of course, I recognize the validity of organic development. The Pope himself has discussed it. Why would I challenge such?
  2. Historical examples are not needed or required. The HMC has the authority to do as she wishes, whether the traditional crowd (or any other crowd for that matter) likes it or not. She does not have to prove herself to us. It is the other way around.
  3. See answer to #2. Pope Paul was not required to provide proof of “organic development” to the traditional crowd to justify the NO.
Pretty simple, isn’t it?
 
consumedconvert said:
Oh dear.

I support the Holy Catholic Church, which includes all of her Rites and all Liturgical forms of the Mass approved by the Pope.

CC
Click to expand...
After further consideration I have decided to add that I do not support attempts to divide Catholics or classify them according to which mass they prefer to attend.

There is such a thing as a Latin Rite Catholic, because there is a Latin Rite of the Holy Catholic Church.

But there is no such thing as an OF or EF Catholic.

You’re not an Extroardinary Form Catholic. No such thing.

I’m not an Ordinary Form Catholic. No such thing.

We are Latin Rite Catholics.
 
bpbasilphx said:
I prefer the Byzantine liturgy. But if there is room in the Church for me and others like me, there should be room in the church for those who prefer either useage of the Roman Rite–or who like both.

2. Please provide one historical example of an instance in which the liturgy of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church has been reformed to the extent that it was in 1970 (the creation of the OF of the Mass)

**The influence of Alcuin comes to mind. (I think it’s Alcuin of York.) When Charlemagne finally received an official “Roman” sacramentary from the Pope (after years of asking for one), it was given to Alcuin to edit. Alcuin discerned that the “pure” Roman rite would only grudigingly be accepted in Charlemagne’s realms, so he added a supplement of rites, ceremonies, and prayers “dear and familiar” to the Frankish people.

This enriched and embellished “Roman a la francaise” became the foundation of the Missale Romanum.

Dom Gregory Dix in his SHAPE OF THE LITURGY goes into greater detail.**
Click to expand...
Thank you for your response, I appreciate it!

However, I don’t think Alcuin’s reform of the Sacramentary could be considered to be on par with the reform of 1970. It is my understanding that Alcuin’s reforms did not fundamentally alter the form of the Mass (as the Mass of 1970 did.)

To quote Fr. Fortescue:
“*From roughly the time of St. Gregory [d. 604] we have the text of the Mass, its order and arrangement, as a sacred tradition that no one has ventured to touch…”
-----Fr. Adrian Fortescue, The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy [1912],

If you have evidence to the contrary, please share it.**
 
I am a lover of the Latin Mass and in fact attended the Latin Mass this past Sunday (yesterday).

That said, the Pope supports the OF.

So I will stand up …

That said, I will kneel at the Consecration. 🙂

~~ the phoenix
 
According to Benedict XVI, as of July 2007: “In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture”. The Vatican action intended to make the EF more widely available were never meant to call the liturgical reforms of Vatican II into question. (see below).

Certain of the traditionalists on this forum cannot seem to get it through their heads that the EF was encouraged in order to increase unity within the Church, so that both forms of the rite could mutually enhance one another, not to set up some weird sort of competition between the OF and the EF. That some of us fail to find anything whatsoever constructive about putting down the OF does not mean we are anti-EF!

Read what the Pope had to say to the bishops below…the EF is NOT going to become the OF, and the new Missal which is currently the OF is not going anywhere.

The Holy Father has expressed the wish that we “generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.” Why is this such a huge problem?
Exerpts from the Letter of Pope Benedict XVI to the Bishops of the World to Present the “Motu Proprio” on the Use of the Roman Liturgy prior to the Reforms of 1970. (The following is the Vatican’s unofficial translation of the official Latin text.)

My dear Brother Bishops,

**With great trust and hope, I am consigning to you as Pastors the text of a new Apostolic Letter “Motu Proprio data” on the use of the Roman liturgy prior to the reform of 1970. The document is the fruit of much reflection, numerous consultations and prayer.

News reports and judgments made without sufficient information have created no little confusion. There have been very divergent reactions ranging from joyful acceptance to harsh opposition, about a plan whose contents were in reality unknown.

This document was most directly opposed on account of two fears, which I would like to address somewhat more closely in this letter.**

In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions – the liturgical reform – is being called into question. This fear is unfounded.…

In the second place, the fear was expressed in discussions about the awaited Motu Proprio, that the possibility of a wider use of the 1962 Missal would lead to disarray or even divisions within parish communities. This fear also strikes me as quite unfounded… it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful….
**
It is true that there have been exaggerations and at times social aspects unduly linked to the attitude of the faithful attached to the ancient Latin liturgical tradition. Your charity and pastoral prudence will be an incentive and guide for improving these…**

**Let us generously open our hearts and make room for everything that the faith itself allows.

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture…"**
 
bpbasilphx said:
I prefer the Byzantine liturgy. But if there is room in the Church for me and others like me, there should be room in the church for those who prefer either useage of the Roman Rite–or who like both.

2. Please provide one historical example of an instance in which the liturgy of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church has been reformed to the extent that it was in 1970 (the creation of the OF of the Mass)

**The influence of Alcuin comes to mind. (I think it’s Alcuin of York.) When Charlemagne finally received an official “Roman” sacramentary from the Pope (after years of asking for one), it was given to Alcuin to edit. Alcuin discerned that the “pure” Roman rite would only grudigingly be accepted in Charlemagne’s realms, so he added a supplement of rites, ceremonies, and prayers “dear and familiar” to the Frankish people.

This enriched and embellished “Roman a la francaise” became the foundation of the Missale Romanum.

Dom Gregory Dix in his SHAPE OF THE LITURGY goes into greater detail.**
Click to expand...
Indeed. IIRC (since I do not have have Dom Reid’s book on hand) he explains that as organic because Alcuin (assuming he is the author) respected the existing texts and added his in the supplement which eventually merged. I remember not being fully convinced with his argument, but I did recognise the meirts of his point. Perhaps someone with the book will type out that section?

In any case, I would say that the NO is a far more drastic reform. Take the Ordinary of the Mass- the Carolignians barely subtracted, they only added. Here and there by the 12th century one witnesses perhaps a slight displacement (e.g. the positioning of the Agnus Dei). The NO on the other hand thoroughly reforms the Ordinary and all the Propers at a shot. Rarely does one have the option of using old prayers as on might have had with Alcuin.
 
SJP said:
Thank you for your response, I appreciate it!

However, I don’t think Alcuin’s reform of the Sacramentary could be considered to be on par with the reform of 1970. It is my understanding that Alcuin’s reforms did not fundamentally alter the form of the Mass (as the Mass of 1970 did.)

To quote Fr. Fortescue:
“From roughly the time of St. Gregory [d. 604*] we have the text of the Mass, its order and arrangement, as a sacred tradition that no one has ventured to touch…”
-----Fr. Adrian Fortescue, The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy [1912],

There are changes - like the additions (one may say large additions) - to the Mass. It’s overall structure is respected, but parts are amplified (e.g. the Preparatory prayers become long, the Communion prayers are enlarged and so forth. We have more collects than before, and some are addressed to the Son, etc., etc.). Fr. Fortescue did not mean to indicate no change - in fact, his own book provides evidence against it.
Click to expand...
 
Are we saying that Paul VI was not in his right mind and mistaken when he accepted and approved the interpretation of the Constitution on the Liturgy by the Consilium and rejected the objections of the Congregation of Rites and the Curia to that interpretation and the subsequent changes?
 
rwoehmke said:
**Are we saying that Paul VI was not in his right mind **and mistaken when he accepted and approved the interpretation of the Constitution on the Liturgy by the Consilium and rejected the objections of the Congregation of Rites and the Curia to that interpretation and the subsequent changes?
Click to expand...
Boy, howdy…what will we come up with next?

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
 
ethelzguy said:
It is also painfully obvious, that the traditionalist crowd clearly has a “us versus them” mentality.
Click to expand...
Actually, it works both ways. Unfortunately there is a far larger class of “us” on the modernists’ side.
  1. Historical examples are not needed or required.
Click to expand...
No, but it would still be nice to know that we are on the right track to Heaven.
  1. Pope Paul was not required to provide proof of “organic development” to the traditional crowd to justify the NO.
Click to expand...
Pretty simple, isn’t it?
Click to expand...
You’re right, the Pope has been handed a blank check to do as he pleases. But somewhere in there there should be a pastoral concern for Christ’s sheep, don’t you think?
 
ProVobis said:
You’re right, the Pope has been handed a blank check to do as he pleases. But somewhere in there there should be a pastoral concern for Christ’s sheep, don’t you think?
Click to expand...
Yep. But somehow, especially here, “pastoral concern” translates into a clergy-bashing free-for-all.

The men running our Church are far more holy, wise, and educated in matters of the Church than I could ever hope to be. Unfortunately, there are many here who feel that they ARE more holy, wise and better educated in matters of the Church.

The “blank check” came from Christ, via Peter.

:yup:
 
consumedconvert said:
After further consideration I have decided to add that I do not support attempts to divide Catholics or classify them according to which mass they prefer to attend.

There is such a thing as a Latin Rite Catholic, because there is a Latin Rite of the Holy Catholic Church.

But there is no such thing as an OF or EF Catholic.

You’re not an Extroardinary Form Catholic. No such thing.

I’m not an Ordinary Form Catholic. No such thing.

We are Latin Rite Catholics.
Click to expand...
There are many rites which use Latin. The most popular one is the Roman Rite.
 
ProVobis said:
Actually, it works both ways. Unfortunately there is a far larger class of “us” on the modernists’ side.

No, but it would still be nice to know that we are on the right track to Heaven.

You’re right, the Pope has been handed a blank check to do as he pleases. But somewhere in there there should be a pastoral concern for Christ’s sheep, don’t you think?
Click to expand...
Yes there should be, but there is no requirement to. The Pope can do as he pleases, and you must obey.
 
I go to the Traditional Mass on Sunday twice a month and the Ordinary Form Twice a month on Sunday. I drive past my neighborhood church to attend both.
I can no longer stand guitar music at mass so I dirve about 40 minutes to a mass of the OF where the music is traditional with the organ. Eucharistic Prayer 1 is always used. There is still a communion rail so I can receive kneeling.
I also travel 40 minutes to attend the TLM high mass.

Of course there is a difference in the structure of the two masses. I love the prayers at the foot of the altar and the reading of the Last Gospel of John in the TLM

I love the mass in the OF when Eucharistic Prayer 1 is used [the roman cannon] and when the priest does not skip over the penitential rite. I do enjoy hearing Eucharistic Prayer 1 said in the vernacular and I like hearing the words of consecration. However I think it would be better if the priest faced the tabernacle and the cross instead of the people at the moment of consecration and the elevation of the host.

The biggest difference I have found is in the congregation. At the OF there is constant talking before mass, the people do not dress respectfully for mass. Some genuflect before entering the pew, some do not. Some kneel to pray, some do not.
At the TLM there is so much reverence shown that when I fist saw this I became ashamed of my own irreverence. It completely changed my way of worship.

Another difference between the TLM and the OF is at the end of Mass. In the OF everyone leaves before the choir has finished its last note.
In the TLM after the choir has finished at least 98% of the congregation kneel back down and pray for another 5-10 minutes. I have often asked myself why is this?
Now when I go to the OF I will stay and pray after Mass. So I must admit that the Traditional Mass has changed the way I dress, the way I pray and the way that I practice my faith.
 
SJP said:
Certain posters have mocked Traditionalists who have used the principle of Organic Development to illustrate the superiority of the EF of the Mass. When asked to provide evidence for our claims we have turned to liturgical experts such as Cardinal Ratzinger, Alcuin Reid and Klaus Gamber. Our responses have either been ignored or posters have changed the subject.
Click to expand...
Well, I’m still waiting for a direct response in my “How is organic development supposed to happen” thread. (at least I have a picture of a woodchuck thing raising its hands 🙂 )
So I have few questions for the OF supporters out there:
Click to expand...
  1. Do you recognize the validity of the principle of Organic Development and its importance to Catholic worship?
Click to expand...
  1. Please provide one historical example of an instance in which the liturgy of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church has been reformed to the extent that it was in 1970 (the creation of the OF of the Mass)
Click to expand...
  1. Please demonstrate (using historical examples) how the creation of the OF of the Mass could be considered an Organic Development.
Click to expand...
Here’s a simple way to answer it:
  1. Church guides us to salvation
  2. Church would not lead us astray
  3. Hence, church would not use an inferior liturgy.
It’s as simple as that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top