Ordinary Form / Novus Ordo - question for Eastern Catholics

[JamestheOlder]

Dear Alex (continued)

As an aside, this lack of Scripture in the TLM contributed to a general lack of knowledge of the Scriptures among “normal” Catholics. Catholics were not encouraged to study the Bible by themselves, nor were there ever any Bible classes held at the parish. This made it hard to defend one’s Faith in the presence of Protestant questions, but, then, my Mom and Dad, who had many Protestant relatives, were advised to direct any questions or inquiries to the (local) parish priest. I understand Pope Benedict’s request to read both the Epistle and the Gospel in the vernacular when the TLM is celebrated today. Isn’t that one of those “Novus Ordo changes”, though? To have actually three readings from Scripture, every Sunday, and two, every weekday Mass, and then to have a homily to “flesh out” the readings? How novel! Teaching on a Scriptural basis from the Old to the New Testament! How refreshing! That can even promote a mystical appreciation of the Novus Ordo Mass, wouldn’t you say?

Please know that I am not just cherry-picking experiences from one parish. I worked all over the Midwest in my teens, twenties and thirties, and probably attended thirty or forty different parishes, including super large ones in Chicago and Detroit.

I could drone on and on, just like the TLM Low Mass, but I will answer your last, three-part question in this manner: There is nothing more beautiful, meaningful, or more edifying than the proper celebration of the Novus Ordo, whether celebrated by one priest in a small church in Alabama, or celebrated by the Abbot of St. Bernard’s Abbey in Cullman, AL, surrounded by his priests and brothers, or celebrated by the Archbishop of Atlanta, with concelebrating priests and attendant deacons. The latter two will rival any celebration of the TLM that you will ever experience. And the first one will tear your heart out with it’s simplicity, dignity and true reverence of both the priest and people, even when the old Hammond is wheezing out “Glory to God in the Highest”. No one goes to sleep at these; no one prays their Rosary, no one wants to miss one minute of these Masses.

Alex, I think the key is active, rather than passive, participation. I think that is what the Vatican II Fathers aimed for. Yes, there have been bumps (wonder how the first forty years of the TLM went, smoothly, you think?). We can hope that the reforms bring consistency. But there is one thing you can count on…there will be no more “pray, pay and obey” for the laity.

Peace.

jim

 

[Aramis]

Alex, I think the key is active, rather than passive, participation. I think that is what the Vatican II Fathers aimed for. Yes, there have been bumps (wonder how the first forty years of the TLM went, smoothly, you think?). We can hope that the reforms bring consistency. But there is one thing you can count on…there will be no more “pray, pay and obey” for the laity.

Peace.

jim

It’s interesting to compare your observations with comments I’ve heard from Cardinal Arinze… He’s noted publicly that liturgical abuses are nothing new, but are merely more noticeable now that people understand the liturgy. I’ve heard the same from an archbishop… Archbishop Hurley… and from several priests.

It’s even more interesting to note historical trends in Russian Orthodoxy which parallel that… Around the turn of the 20th C, Russian Orthodoxy in Russia was tending to mirror the Trent model: A choir and the clergy did all the responses, and the people stood witness… and the Russian Orthodox Church was faltering badly. In Alaska, however, where congregational singing was still the norm, it was flourishing at the same time. Now, when congregational responses are not always used, and certain prayers are choir only, it’s faltering in Alaska.

Those exquisite Russian polyphonic hymnody arrangements are excellent listening… but lousy for the parish to sing. Just like the exquisite versions of the Roman mass settings.

People will enjoy active participatory repetition, but complain loudly about passive participation inrepetition, in my educational experience. Have them say the pledge or sing the anthem, daily or more… but require silence during them, and they gripe. Have them take notes during an educational film, and you can run it twice in a row; have them simply sit, and they tend to gripe if it’s more than 10 minutes long.

 

[Cecilianus]

What was wrong with the Tridentine Latin Mass (TLM)? Where to begin? It was routine. It was so routine it was boring, except for maybe the one time a year (Christmas Midnight Mass) when a Solemn High Mass was celebrated with all the smells and bells. The rest of the year we were treated to a Low Mass. Have you ever been to a TLM Low Mass, Alex? I have served some that took nine minutes flat (places deleted to protect the guilty). At the parish where I served daily and Sunday Mass during elementary school, we had one High Mass on Sunday at 10:00 AM. Let’s pretend to call it a High Mass, anyway, since this parish and many others had no one schooled in Gregorian Chant, and, obviously then, no Schola Cantorum. The one other Mass on Sunday (8 AM), as well as all weekday and most Holy Day Masses were Low Masses. You know how long it takes to say Low Mass on Sunday with a large congregation? Maybe thirty minutes, if the sermon was short, even if most everyone went to Holy Communion. Boy, the priest could really zip down the altar railing; you had to be fast with the paten under the chins.

I was born after Vatican II and do not know what the Tridentine Mass was like before then. But every Low Mass I have ever been to (quite a few) were an hour to an hour and a half, minimum, except for a private Mass that was once said by a Benedictine monk after we had been in the monastery church for close to four hours for Matins and Lauds said in choir and High Mass.

If you were bored, that is your fault, not that of the Liturgy. The Liturgy is not there for our entertainment. It is said silently because the priest is not praying to you; it is an hour and a half where you have the peace to pray and contemplate in silence, to truly “lay aside all earthly cares”.

Sermons were only done on Sundays, and occasionally on major Feastdays. They usually consisted of any subject the priest desired, including, occasionally, asking for funds to repair the roof. This was true, you see, because homilies only came into being with the Novus Ordo. And now, homilies are to be based on the readings for that day, even for weekday Masses. For TLM funeral Masses (and I served plenty of those), the sermon was a eulogy…longer ones for folks who were pillars of the parish. That’s why the Novus Ordo Rite today restricts eulogies to the period after the Closing Prayer; the time after the Gospel is to be used for a homily on the Scriptures for the Funeral Mass…only.

Many Byzantine Liturgies do not have sermons at all, so I’m not too sympathetic to your complaint. Your claim about homilies is historically unfounded. Read the homilies and sermons of the Fathers, the Doctors of the Church, and the later orators like Jacques-Benigne Bossuet and Fenelon.

Then there was the matter of Scriptural study and learning. The TLM offered a very limited menu, since only the Gospel for the Sunday was read in English from the pulpit. O, yes, the pulpit was needed, because there were no microphones at our parishes back in the forties and fifties to broadcast every Latin nuance of the Mass to eager ears. What you usually heard, if you were in the second pew or further back, was this sort of “buzz” or low drone, as the priest read his Latin prayers. You know there was no congregational participation, so the priest rarely had to raise his voice. And no, the “dialogue” version of the TLM was never really implemented in the US; I understand it was used in Germany, in the vernacular.

jim
(To be Continued, Next Post)

Most people pray the Mass with brevaries, and get a whole load of Scripture both in the words of the Mass AND in the Epistle and Gospel.

 

[Cecilianus]

It’s probably no secret to people here that I have no love for the NO Mass, which I never call the “Ordinary Form” - it’s a historical aberration. The usus antiquor is the ordinary form for all Roman Catholics from the 7th century to the 1960s.

My problem is with the NO itself, not just the implementation. It’s a made-up Liturgy. We don’t experiment with and make up new Liturgies for fun in the East. We worship the way we have worshiped - with organic developments - since the 4th century.

As an Easterner I feel “at home” in a Tridentine Mass, especially a monastic one as celebrated by the Benedictines at Clear Creek Abbey in Oklahoma, for example. The spiritual environment is the same as in the East, even though the words are practices are ENTIRELY different. I can actually pray and contemplate in a Tridentine Mass. I do not feel like I am at church in a NO.

The environment of the NO feels like imitation Protestantism, though that’s a bit of an insult to real Protestantism like the “high-church” Lutheranism I grew up with. If I want to feel like a Protestant, I know where to go where it feels real. It doesn’t in a Catholic church.

Both the 1962 Missal and the Divine Liturgy preserve a sense of the sacred. For example, we both veil the mystery of the Eucharist, in one rite by silence and in the other by the iconostasis. In the name of a poorly understood “active participation” the liturgists threw out the veil over the mystery. Fr. Louis Bouyer noted (in his book Liturgy and Architecture) that the sense of active participation is the strongest in the Byzantine East, a place where the congregation doesn’t even have a slightest desire to see the priest celebrating their Liturgy. And it’s true - I like the Russian “floor-to-ceiling” iconostases where the Royal Doors are almost never opened, and I love the coziness of the temple, the way it feels almost like a synagogue with the priest saying his homily in the middle of the congregation and asking questions from his parishioners. (I’ve never been to a synagogue, so my apologies if my analogy is misplaced, but that’s my impression as to how very traditional synagogues work.)

 

[malphono]

It’s probably no secret to people here that I have no love for the NO Mass, which I never call the “Ordinary Form” - it’s a historical aberration. The usus antiquor is the ordinary form for all Roman Catholics from the 7th century to the 1960s.

My problem is with the NO itself, not just the implementation. It’s a made-up Liturgy. We don’t experiment with and make up new Liturgies for fun in the East. We worship the way we have worshiped - with organic developments - since the 4th century.

As an Easterner I feel “at home” in a Tridentine Mass, especially a monastic one as celebrated by the Benedictines at Clear Creek Abbey in Oklahoma, for example. The spiritual environment is the same as in the East, even though the words are practices are ENTIRELY different. I can actually pray and contemplate in a Tridentine Mass. I do not feel like I am at church in a NO.

The environment of the NO feels like imitation Protestantism, though that’s a bit of an insult to real Protestantism like the “high-church” Lutheranism I grew up with. If I want to feel like a Protestant, I know where to go where it feels real. It doesn’t in a Catholic church.

Both the 1962 Missal and the Divine Liturgy preserve a sense of the sacred. For example, we both veil the mystery of the Eucharist, in one rite by silence and in the other by the iconostasis. In the name of a poorly understood “active participation” the liturgists threw out the veil over the mystery. Fr. Louis Bouyer noted (in his book Liturgy and Architecture) that the sense of active participation is the strongest in the Byzantine East, a place where the congregation doesn’t even have a slightest desire to see the priest celebrating their Liturgy. And it’s true - I like the Russian “floor-to-ceiling” iconostases where the Royal Doors are almost never opened, and I love the coziness of the temple, the way it feels almost like a synagogue with the priest saying his homily in the middle of the congregation and asking questions from his parishioners. (I’ve never been to a synagogue, so my apologies if my analogy is misplaced, but that’s my impression as to how very traditional synagogues work.)

Excellent!

 

[JamestheOlder]

I was born after Vatican II and do not know what the Tridentine Mass was like before then. But every Low Mass I have ever been to (quite a few) were an hour to an hour and a half, minimum, except for a private Mass that was once said by a Benedictine monk after we had been in the monastery church for close to four hours for Matins and Lauds said in choir and High Mass.

If you were bored, that is your fault, not that of the Liturgy. The Liturgy is not there for our entertainment. It is said silently because the priest is not praying to you; it is an hour and a half where you have the peace to pray and contemplate in silence, to truly “lay aside all earthly cares”.

Many Byzantine Liturgies do not have sermons at all, so I’m not too sympathetic to your complaint. Your claim about homilies is historically unfounded. Read the homilies and sermons of the Fathers, the Doctors of the Church, and the later orators like Jacques-Benigne Bossuet and Fenelon.

Most people pray the Mass with brevaries, and get a whole load of Scripture both in the words of the Mass AND in the Epistle and Gospel.

I’m really happy that you obtain as much comfort as you do from the Tridentine Mass. I told you as it was, and you tell me how it is. What on earth would a priest do to take 1-1/2 hours to say a Low Mass? Please inform us of this.

Also, you need to study the differences between sermons and homilies; they are quite distinct.

Finally, I hope you are not saying the Liturgy of the Hours during Mass. That’s what the breviary is for. The proper Mass book is the missal.

Ah, to be young and enthused by the TLM once again. Well…maybe not in my lifetime.

 

[JamestheOlder]

It’s probably no secret to people here that I have no love for the NO Mass, which I never call the “Ordinary Form” - it’s a historical aberration. The usus antiquor is the ordinary form for all Roman Catholics from the 7th century to the 1960s.

My problem is with the NO itself, not just the implementation. It’s a made-up Liturgy. We don’t experiment with and make up new Liturgies for fun in the East. We worship the way we have worshiped - with organic developments - since the 4th century.

I’m afraid I could not deduce that you dislike the Ordinary Form, yet it is just that, and will remain that. So, take a deep breath and read carefully:

The conciliar Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium encouraged the faithful to take part in the eucharistic liturgy not “as strangers or silent spectators,” but as participants “in the sacred action, conscious of what they are doing, actively and devoutly”.

This is a teaching of the Catholic Church in council. This is confirmed by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. This is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit.

Now, you were saying…

 

[Cecilianus]

I’m really happy that you obtain as much comfort as you do from the Tridentine Mass. I told you as it was, and you tell me how it is. What on earth would a priest do to take 1-1/2 hours to say a Low Mass? Please inform us of this.

Also, you need to study the differences between sermons and homilies; they are quite distinct.

Finally, I hope you are not saying the Liturgy of the Hours during Mass. That’s what the breviary is for. The proper Mass book is the missal.

Ah, to be young and enthused by the TLM once again. Well…maybe not in my lifetime.

I meant “missal”, not “breviary”. My bad. Whenever I go I just use the Missalette in the church (either the Redmond missalette, or the Angelus Press one, depending on the church I happen to be at), so I don’t have a missal of my own.

I had thought that all Low Masses were 1 to 1.5 hours. He just says them slowly and reverently.

There were quite a few people at my Catholic liberal arts college who went to the Tridentine Mass every week - I’d guess about half a dozen at the FSSP parish, at least one who went occasionally to the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest oratory, one who goes occasionally to the parish that does a Low Mass, and three to eight of us (including me) who went to Divine Liturgy, everyone driving an hour or more each way. We got 130+ students (and some professors) to sign a petition asking for a Tridentine Mass on campus. Unfortunately we did not have the support of the president, the chaplain, his abbot, the bishop, or the Papal commission Ecclesia Dei.

 

[Cecilianus]

I’m afraid I could not deduce that you dislike the Ordinary Form, yet it is just that, and will remain that. So, take a deep breath and read carefully:

The conciliar Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium encouraged the faithful to take part in the eucharistic liturgy not “as strangers or silent spectators,” but as participants “in the sacred action, conscious of what they are doing, actively and devoutly”.

This is a teaching of the Catholic Church in council. This is confirmed by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. This is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit.

Now, you were saying…

In the environment of reverence and contemplation fostered by the Latin Mass, I have a MUCH easier time engaging in active participation than with all the distractions of guitars and hymns in the N.O. I also think the old lady in front of me praying the Rosary is probably “actively participating” in a much greater way than we realize - participating in a spiritual way, a quiet way we may not notice, but uniting herself to the Mass in a way that gives her just as much spiritual benefit as the old man next to her reading his missal, or me saying the Jesus Prayer continuously through the Mass.

 

[JamestheOlder]

I had thought that all Low Masses were 1 to 1.5 hours. He just says them slowly and reverently.

I’m truly amazed. I attended/served Low Mass daily at the church next to our elementary school. Over the six years I was there, we had perhaps five different priests. Weekday Mass was always Low Mass. I cannot imagine a manner in which the Low Mass could be stretched to even an hour. Thirty minutes of unhurried Mass (never a sermon) was the common experience, and our school breakfast was based on this schedule. Mass was at 0800, breakfast was 0830-0900 and school started promptly at 0900…in the classroom.

In five years in the minor seminary, the side altar Low Masses (priest + one server) lasted perhaps fifteen minutes; Low Mass at the main altar perhaps 30 minutes.

He must be very reverent!

 

[JamestheOlder]

In the environment of reverence and contemplation fostered by the Latin Mass, I have a MUCH easier time engaging in active participation than with all the distractions of guitars and hymns in the N.O. I also think the old lady in front of me praying the Rosary is probably “actively participating” in a much greater way than we realize - participating in a spiritual way, a quiet way we may not notice, but uniting herself to the Mass in a way that gives her just as much spiritual benefit as the old man next to her reading his missal, or me saying the Jesus Prayer continuously through the Mass.

Our definitions of “active participation” do differ, and that is okay with me. I have no problem with someone worshipping as they will; I have my own soul to worry about…much.

But please do not denigrate the Ordinary Form of the Liturgy of the Church. Properly said and properly sung, it is the jewel of great worth in many eyes, and it should not be tarnished. The same may be said of the current celebration of the EF, and I will watch my tone from now on. I do not remember the celebration of the TLM done well, much as you point out your distractions with the vagaries of the OF.

We may agree to disagree. Peace.

 

[5Loaves]

My question is, do my Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters have an intrinsic problem with this usage of the Roman Rite itself, or is it more, as is the case for many Latins, a problem with how it has often be implemented in practice?

…I believe that this is an important topic as I’ve come across many Eastern ORTHODOX board members who single out the OF mass as a stumbling block for unity.

I think that practices which have become common, especially in America, and which are often directly in conflict with the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, with Redemptionis Sacramentum, with Canon Law, are indeed a stumbling block for unity with Orthodox. These are far from inherent in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, and the current “reform of the reform” as HH Benedict XVI has referred to it will see, we pray, important positive changes.

I personally like very much the increased use of Sacred Scripture in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite and the reinstating of Concelebration by the Second Vatican Council. The restoration of the “permanent” deaconate for the Latin Church is also a positive change from the Council, and by the way has provided for married men to be ordained routinely in the Latin Church.

For English speaking countries the long awaited new translation of the Roman Missal will restore the text to a register appropriate to sacred texts, and in union with the translations long in use world wide for languages other than English. That register is much closer to the register we already have in the English translations of the Divine Liturgies of the East.

 

[Cecilianus]

I will agree that the restoration of the antiphonal Psalm, the second reading, and the prayers after the formerly freehanging “Oremus” (before after the Creed? I honestly don’t go that often on Sundays, so I don’t remember exactly where) were welcome additions, though having the “litanies” be ad-libbed or made up instead of following pre-set traditional formulas like we do in the Byzantine Rite is problematic. And having the Gospel and Epistle read versus populum makes sense too, though I hate it when the Eucharist is consecrated that way.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I will agree that the restoration of the antiphonal Psalm, the second reading, and the prayers after the formerly freehanging “Oremus” (before after the Creed? I honestly don’t go that often on Sundays, so I don’t remember exactly where) were welcome additions, though having the “litanies” be ad-libbed or made up instead of following pre-set traditional formulas like we do in the Byzantine Rite is problematic. And having the Gospel and Epistle read versus populum makes sense too, though I hate it when the Eucharist is consecrated that way.

I was hanging out at my previous RC parish’s office because I’m helping them with their new website. I was surprised to see a book there with set “Prayers of the Faithful” for different times of the calendar. Makes me think though why some do prefer to make up prayers if there is already a list of ones to use. Of course even in the Divine Liturgy, you may insert special petitions at appropriate times of the Litanies.

 

[Cecilianus]

I was hanging out at my previous RC parish’s office because I’m helping them with their new website. I was surprised to see a book there with set “Prayers of the Faithful” for different times of the calendar. Makes me think though why some do prefer to make up prayers if there is already a list of ones to use. Of course even in the Divine Liturgy, you may insert special petitions at appropriate times of the Litanies.

But we use set formulae, with Scriptural references, when doing so. This isn’t done in the Roman Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

But we use set formulae, with Scriptural references, when doing so. This isn’t done in the Roman Church.

I’ll go through the book next time I’m there and see whats in there. I have to agree though that what makes it to Mass doesn’t sound like something that was well thought of. I don’t mind inserting one or two special intentions, as long as everything else is followed.

And besides, how can you beat, “may this day be perfect, holy, sinless and peaceful”?

 

[Cecilianus]

And besides, how can you beat, “may this day be perfect, holy, sinless and peaceful”?

Or “for an angel of peace, a guide and guardian of our souls and bodies”?

Or “that we may spend the rest of our lives in peace and repentance?”

I love our Liturgy.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear James,

I’ve attended Latin Masses in both forms, to be sure.

And I’m not saying the NO does not edify. It is just that the times I’ve attended an NO Mass - there is no edification to be had from the way they were celebrated.

That Scripture was neglected in the past is a problem that was not the fault of the Tridentine Liturgy. The vast majority of people in the past simply could not read. Even when the Protestant Reformers announced their “Sola Scriptura” - they did so to a largely illiterate audience until the 18th and 19th centuries.

From my own POV on the Latin Church (which means squat), why wouldn’t Rome have simply translated the liturgical texts into the national languages, including the scriptures, for the benefit of the people?

The issues you raise with the Tridentine liturgical tradition can also exist in NO parishes and also EC parishes. Again, no reason to take a pruning knife to the Rite.

Your allusion to the early Church is about ceremonial matters only. The fact is that Christians prayed in Church liturgically for very long periods of time. The Divine Liturgy was very long and Christians were used to all-night vigils and also to getting up at midnight themselves to pray with their families at home.

The explanations given about how the NO Mass is somehow a link with the Liturgy of the ancient Roman Rite . . . well, we can discuss that until the cows come home.

However, the Latin Church is the Latin Church. I sense that some of our Latin Brothers here, yourself included, feel a bit sensitive about Eastern Catholics and Orthodox commenting on their liturgical developments. This has given rise to the even nonsensical comment above that we are somehow desirous of imposing the “Greek Rite” on the Roman Church (and what is the “Greek Rite” as I’ve not heard that term used for several decades?).

The NO Mass can indeed be done “properly” and with the greatest of reverence. But it seems to me that you have a liturgical crisis on your hands in North America.

And yes, I’m speaking from an EC POV. Reverence and worship due the Almighty are and must be pre-eminent in the Liturgy which is why the NO simply has nothing to tell us about any of that.

Alex

 

[JamestheOlder]

Dear James,

I’ve attended Latin Masses in both forms, to be sure.

And I’m not saying the NO does not edify. It is just that the times I’ve attended an NO Mass - there is no edification to be had from the way they were celebrated.

That Scripture was neglected in the past is a problem that was not the fault of the Tridentine Liturgy. The vast majority of people in the past simply could not read. Even when the Protestant Reformers announced their “Sola Scriptura” - they did so to a largely illiterate audience until the 18th and 19th centuries.

From my own POV on the Latin Church (which means squat), why wouldn’t Rome have simply translated the liturgical texts into the national languages, including the scriptures, for the benefit of the people?

The issues you raise with the Tridentine liturgical tradition can also exist in NO parishes and also EC parishes. Again, no reason to take a pruning knife to the Rite.

Your allusion to the early Church is about ceremonial matters only. The fact is that Christians prayed in Church liturgically for very long periods of time. The Divine Liturgy was very long and Christians were used to all-night vigils and also to getting up at midnight themselves to pray with their families at home.

The explanations given about how the NO Mass is somehow a link with the Liturgy of the ancient Roman Rite . . . well, we can discuss that until the cows come home.

However, the Latin Church is the Latin Church. I sense that some of our Latin Brothers here, yourself included, feel a bit sensitive about Eastern Catholics and Orthodox commenting on their liturgical developments. This has given rise to the even nonsensical comment above that we are somehow desirous of imposing the “Greek Rite” on the Roman Church (and what is the “Greek Rite” as I’ve not heard that term used for several decades?).

The NO Mass can indeed be done “properly” and with the greatest of reverence. But it seems to me that you have a liturgical crisis on your hands in North America.

And yes, I’m speaking from an EC POV. Reverence and worship due the Almighty are and must be pre-eminent in the Liturgy which is why the NO simply has nothing to tell us about any of that.

Alex

Thanks for your calm and reasoned response, Alex. The OP probably appreciates your POV, as had been asked for.

I’m afraid we have had a liturgical crisis in the North American (Latin) Church for many years…back through many past years of the Tridentine Mass. It’s not completely due to the Tridentine Mass, particularly, that the Latin Church saw fit to modify the Liturgy, but it was a result of clericalism and attitude that we arrived at the situation I observed in the fifties and sixties. The resulting exclusion of the laity from participation and understanding (catechesis) of the Liturgy created a concern which the Council Fathers sought to remedy.

Do not blame the laity; there was no method or order to catechize the laity in the form and celebration of the Tridentine Mass. At least that has begun, for the NO, with the “reform of the reform”. Also, don’t blame the laity for the “Father knows best” attitude about evangelization or Scripture. My Mom was a college graduate in the Twenties. She taught grade school. She silently said her Rosary during Mass, and never opened our Bible, other than to record births, Baptisms, etc. My family members were prolific readers, yet she warned me away from reading the Bible. This was the Catholic culture of at least the Midwest in the first sixty years of the 20th century. Not to axe the Tridentine Mass, but to illustrate the submissive state of the laity, I should take many more pages of explanation to you, and to others who see only a careful and reverent re-birth of the Tridentine liturgy, something we (older ones) do not remember.

Sensitive about the NO and vernacular language? You bet. I repeat that the NO, properly celebrated is at least as meaningful and reverent as the Tridentine Masses celebrated today…both forms by priests and bishops DEDICATED to adherence to the respective GIRM’s.

And as we know, because we have looked and studied, there are substantial differences between the two forms of the Latin Liturgy…and we can call out those differences. But, as one priest-author has pointed out, if the NO were celebrated in Latin, ad orientam, most Catholics would be hard put to tell the difference from the Tridentine Rite. I cannot testify to this, but in a Low Mass versus an NO without music (most-times weekday Mass), I can see where most people would be fooled.

Your comments are valuable because you Orthodox and Uniates have very distinct Liturgies that precede Trent, in some cases. But, as I have pointed out elsewhere, it is not your duty, nor even your privilege, to denigrate what is the Ordinary Form of the Latin Liturgy. And by that, I mean that I think this is a legitimate forum for you to critique the Latin OF/EF versus your own Divine Liturgy, but not to demean the Liturgy used by the “the other half” of the Catholic world.

I hope I have been neither pedantic nor vague. I love the NO in a way I never learned to love the Tridentine Liturgy. I also love the conversations which we have, because these forums make me think, and think hard, how I can promote and protect the proper celebration of the NO. So, please do not stop your comparisons and your discussion of this very vital subject.

I owe many thanks to the OP for giving us this opportunity to understand Liturgies better.

Peace be with you!

jim

 

[5Loaves]

…Your comments are valuable because you Orthodox and Uniates have very distinct Liturgies that precede Trent, in some cases…

Jim-
I have no problem with the rest of your post. Thank you for your thoughts.

You probably don’t realize that the term “uniate” is often used in a pejorative way in some circles. Some of us have considered embracing it and using it to describe ourselves, as some will happily call themselves a “papist”, embracing that term which likewise gets used sometimes in a derogatory way.

I’m sure you meant no disrespect in using it. Call us Eastern Catholics and Oriental Catholics, EC/OC, Greek Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, Orthodox in communion with Rome… :whacky: all confusing terms to many, as is our status in the Body of Christ.

And I share much of your appreciation for the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite when celebrated as it can be with reverence and the music which is meant to have “pride of place” in it. I’m blest to be able to assist once or twice a week at the OF of the Mass with the Dominicans in their local priory. It is actually quite a plain celebration and depending on who is the main celebrant we may be invited to share out loud prayer intentions during the Prayer of the Faithful. There is clear solemnity throughout the time which I cherish, from chanting the Hours before the Holy Mass, through chanting the Magnificat at the close.