Old Mass in the Future

[TantumErgo90]

I really enjoy reading Father Z’s blog What Does the Prayer Really Say. But some things are really troubling me. He seems to know for sure that the 1962 Missal will change. That some things in the Novus Ordo Missal (not just prefaces and new saints) will be incorporated in the TLM. That bugs me. I can see how the 1962 Missal can add things to the ordinary form, but I don’t see how the old Mass can be added to by the ordinary form. The 1962 Missal doesn’t need to be changed and traditionalists do not want it to be changed. It would cause greater divisions in the Church if it will be changed. Please, any advise?

 

[markadm]

Oh! Did he say that? (panics)

I had always agreed with what Fr Z was saying about incorporating readings and prefaces for newer Saints, but hadn’t noticed him saying that anything more would be taken across. My bad for not paying attention!

 

[Rolltide]

Well, of course it will change. One of the problems that some people have with the Ordinary Form of the Mass is that is was such a break with tradition. Most other church documents talk about the “organic” development of the liturgy, meaning that very small changes evolve in it over time. In the twentieth century alone, several small changes were made to the Extraordinary Form, such as the addition of St. Joseph, etc… NO liturgy is meant to be stagnant, but neither is it meant to be changed in radical ways (in the opinion of people with this viewpoint). The goal of SOME (not all) of the people on Father Z’s board is to:

1. Liberate the TLM (done)
2. Eliminate the NO, or restore it to what Vatican II originally intended
3. Restore the TLM to it’s natural, slow development

What’s interesting is that many traditionalists don’t understand that. You have groups like SSPV that don’t even recognize the changes to the TLM in the twentieth century. And yet, the liturgy has always changed, albeit slightly and gradually, over time.

 

[Dauphin]

I think a moderate increase in the vernacular (as an option) is fine - something closer to high anglican liturgy that can start to replace the NO.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I think a moderate increase in the vernacular (as an option) is fine - something closer to high anglican liturgy that can start to replace the NO.

We did that from 1984 to 1992 - up to and including using the 1940 Episcopalian hymnal. Father said “No Latin”. And there was no Latin. The English motets, anthemns, and hymns are lovely - don’t get me wrong. But, Christians to the Paschal Victim is not the same as Victimae Paschale Laudes nor are any of the sequences. The chant may be the same but Sing My Tongue the Savior’s Glory is not Pange Linqua Gloriosi.

The breaking point for my parish was our 200th anniversary celebration in 1992. The Cardinal Abp. of Lyons, France departed from the script and gave the Apostolic Blessing in Latin. Five of us in the choir of 30 knew the proper response (and believe me I was absolutely flabergasted - but I remembered). The response from the 100 or so diocesan priests was abysmal. Then, and only then, did things begin to change.

It’s all well and good to put the Mass into the vernacular but 40+ years ago, a Catholic could go anywhere in the world and be able to participate.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

I think a moderate increase in the vernacular (as an option) is fine - something closer to high anglican liturgy that can start to replace the NO.

Yes, I’m not against vernacular like the (very) High Anglicans use it but I still wouldn’t like it to replace Latin. I’m not sure how that would work out, but I still haven’t really given it much thought. But as far as vernacular, if the readings will be read in vernacular (either before the homily or during the actual reading) I would be OK.

What I believe the Pope is essentially planning with TLM is that both forms of the Latin Rite will one day meet and create only one form. Essentially there would no longer be neither NO nor TLM. This would also take some time and a lot of work (and I’m pretty certain that we alredy will see a lot of changes during his pontificate). The current way in which many NO masses are celebrated would really make this impossible. So the NO would first need to get close to TLM on the externals. But hopefully as more people will become aware of our traditions (as fully seen in TLM) it would effect the state of NO and bring it what VII intended. Then it would be just a matter of time until the two would naturally join.

It will be hard work but I’m optimistic that this can be done. I’m not sure if I will live long enough to see it done but I can’t see of any better way.

So yes, this is hopefully the future of TLM.

Is this what Fr. Z means? Not sure.

 

[patrick457]

I really enjoy reading Father Z’s blog What Does the Prayer Really Say. But some things are really troubling me. He seems to know for sure that the 1962 Missal will change. That some things in the Novus Ordo Missal (not just prefaces and new saints) will be incorporated in the TLM. That bugs me. I can see how the 1962 Missal can add things to the ordinary form, but I don’t see how the old Mass can be added to by the ordinary form. The 1962 Missal doesn’t need to be changed and traditionalists do not want it to be changed. It would cause greater divisions in the Church if it will be changed. Please, any advise?

Why should they protest? Sooner or later the Liturgy is bound to change in one form or the other. 'Tis a simple fact of life; nothing that is here now will look the same in the future.

If the Liturgy of the Church of Rome had not changed (or rather ‘evolved’), are we not supposed to not have the Elevation nor the Credo nor the Incensing nor the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar? Is not the Acolyte supposed to carry the Paten? Are we not supposed to still sing in Old Roman Chant?

 

[TantumErgo90]

Yes…but most traditionalists (myself included) want a fixed rite…that will not change. There is nothing wrong with the books of 1962 at all. We do not want anything taken out, we do not want the texts or rubrics to be simplified.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Yes…but most traditionalists (myself included) want a fixed rite…that will not change. There is nothing wrong with the books of 1962 at all. We do not want anything taken out, we do not want the texts or rubrics to be simplified.

You want something that has never happened in the Latin Church (and as far as I know…not in any other) and will probably most likely happen. Liturgy and rituals change over time. The TLM was always in development. If you go few hundred years back the liturgy is not the same as it was before the V2.

Of course there is what one could call an organic change and there is an enforced one. But if you want absolutely no change then you were born on a wrong planet.

Pax

 

[Pious_Mat]

I think that the change being discussed here is taken out of historical context, in that it is far too rapid.

How much did the Tridentine Mass change between 1570 and 1962? Not a heck of a lot. When we talk about the TLM changing, we can’t think of it in terms of a Novus Ordo time frame. We’re talking about a couple of words being changed and an added or removed gesture every few centuries. The EF will never become the Novus Ordo–and if it does, it will probably take another two thousand years for this to happen.

The OF, however, by its very nature, is subject to much greater change, and it seems to me that in forty years, we could all be attending an EWTN-style Mass in nearly every Diocese in the World. This may not happen, but is certainly possible.

The Tridentine Mass, which was never and will probably never be abrogated, will always stay generally the same. If any of you are familiar with the pre-Trent rites, and have studied any of the rubrics, you will find that the Mass of St. Gregory the Great and the Mass of Bl. John XXIII are very similar. In fact, from the point of view of many of us, who are so used to the huge jump between OF one minute and EF the next, they are virtually the same.

To close, any change that happens to the Mass organically is typically a good thing. We can all agree that the Easter Triduum was a good thing, and any future changes made to the TLM over the next centuries will be of that nature–i.e., in the Spirit of both Trent and Vactican II, under the watchful eye of a good and wise Pontiff like Benedict.

 

[ForeverAdam]

To close, any change that happens to the Mass organically is typically a good thing. We can all agree that the Easter Triduum was a good thing, and any future changes made to the TLM over the next centuries will be of that nature–i.e., in the Spirit of both Trent and Vactican II, under the watchful eye of a good and wise Pontiff like Benedict.

Good post, Mat.

 

[AJV]

The Tridentine Mass, which was never and will probably never be abrogated, will always stay generally the same. If any of you are familiar with the pre-Trent rites, and have studied any of the rubrics, you will find that the Mass of St. Gregory the Great and the Mass of Bl. John XXIII are very similar. In fact, from the point of view of many of us, who are so used to the huge jump between OF one minute and EF the next, they are virtually the same.

Not exactly. See that illuminating thread that Patrick started: the Mass in the city of Rome.
As for the rubrics they were most certainly different. Less bowing, no genuflecting, no major elevations as today in both the OF and EF, and so forth.

 

[patrick457]

Not exactly. See that illuminating thread that Patrick started: the Mass in the city of Rome.
As for the rubrics they were most certainly different. Less bowing, no genuflecting, no major elevations as today in both the OF and EF, and so forth.

The Elevation was only introduced somewhere around the close of the 12th Century; way before this (at the time period in that thread of mine, which was somewhere around the 6th-8th century I think), what would be close to an elevation of the Sacred Species is the Archdeacon lifting the Chalice (carrying it using the Offertory-Veil twisted in the handles of the Chalice) and the Pope touching the sides of it using the consecrated loaves at the ‘Per ipsum’.

 

[jj2011]

Not exactly. See that illuminating thread that Patrick started: the Mass in the city of Rome.
As for the rubrics they were most certainly different. Less bowing, no genuflecting, no major elevations as today in both the OF and EF, and so forth.

Actually the texts are almost the same, but for a lengthy list of “accretions,” basically consisting of private prayers of the priest, offertory prayers, Judica me, Last Gospel and so on.