Possible changes you would like to see with the Extraodinary form?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kearney
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kearney

Guest
I’ve been thinking a lot about our wonderful Extraordinary form of the mass and how it may change in the future. Lets face facts, Pope Benedict wants a Reform of the Reform of the roman liturgy. The Extraordinary form at present may change in upcoming years and may possibly be merged with the Ordinary form at some future date to create an Uber Roman Rite of sorts.

I sincerely hope that the end result will be much more closer to the Extraordinary Tridentine way of doing things then what passes for rubrics and ceremony in most present day Catholic parishes. However, in the mean time what aspects of the Ordinary rite would people like to see possibly incorporated as either options or officials rules to the Extraordinary form of the mass?

I, for one, submit the following:
  1. That the priest be given the option of saying or singing the Canon aloud so that the congregation can follow him better. Plenty of times I’ve been to a TLM where you barely get through the Sanctus and the priest is already at the consecration. An aloud Canon would make active participation by the people more easy in that regard.
  2. That the Chalice may be optionally given tot he laity so that they too may drink the Blood of Christ as was done in all rites of the Church before the Middle ages.
  3. That the readings and Gospel be proclaimed by the priest in the vernacular only without first being said in Latin.
  4. That con celebration be a legitimate option for priest as well as bishops.
These are obviously only suggestions. I’m sure more then a few rad trads will blow a gasket at them but what do the vast majority of people think?
 
Kearney said:
I’ve been thinking a lot about our wonderful Extraordinary form of the mass and how it may change in the future. Lets face facts, Pope Benedict wants a Reform of the Reform of the roman liturgy. The Extraordinary form at present may change in upcoming years and may possibly be merged with the Ordinary form at some future date to create an Uber Roman Rite of sorts.

I sincerely hope that the end result will be much more closer to the Extraordinary Tridentine way of doing things then what passes for rubrics and ceremony in most present day Catholic parishes. However, in the mean time what aspects of the Ordinary rite would people like to see possibly incorporated as either options or officials rules to the Extraordinary form of the mass?

I, for one, submit the following:
  1. That the priest be given the option of saying or singing the Canon aloud so that the congregation can follow him better. Plenty of times I’ve been to a TLM where you barely get through the Sanctus and the priest is already at the consecration. An aloud Canon would make active participation by the people more easy in that regard.
  2. That the Chalice may be optionally given tot he laity so that they too may drink the Blood of Christ as was done in all rites of the Church before the Middle ages.
  3. That the readings and Gospel be proclaimed by the priest in the vernacular only without first being said in Latin.
  4. That con celebration be a legitimate option for priest as well as bishops.
These are obviously only suggestions. I’m sure more then a few rad trads will blow a gasket at them but what do the vast majority of people think?
Click to expand...
I’ve got a better idea. Leave the Traditional Mass alone and fix the one that’s broken.
 
Well, this might just be a way to fix the one that’s broken and save us all from a lot of grief. A future, combined Roman rite which is still essentially Tridentine in nature yet has certain features of the new liturgy would be a great benefit to today’s Church.

Either way, Its not up to me but the Pope and the PCED. I have considered witting a letter to Cardinal Hoyos in order to suggest these reforms be undertaken but I figure that either someone else has already done so or that he would never get to read it in the first place.
 
Yours_Truly said:
I’ve got a better idea. Leave the Traditional Mass alone and fix the one that’s broken.
Click to expand...
Better still: make the EF part of a separate Church Sui Iuris, and keep the OF and EF favoring crowds under separate bishops who share their liturgical norms… Something which Archbishop Lefebvre had asked for in the 1980’s.

It works for the Eastern Churches in Union…
 
Kearney said:
I’ve been thinking a lot about our wonderful Extraordinary form of the mass and how it may change in the future. Lets face facts, Pope Benedict wants a Reform of the Reform of the roman liturgy. The Extraordinary form at present may change in upcoming years and may possibly be merged with the Ordinary form at some future date to create an Uber Roman Rite of sorts.

I sincerely hope that the end result will be much more closer to the Extraordinary Tridentine way of doing things then what passes for rubrics and ceremony in most present day Catholic parishes. However, in the mean time what aspects of the Ordinary rite would people like to see possibly incorporated as either options or officials rules to the Extraordinary form of the mass?

I, for one, submit the following:
  1. That the priest be given the option of saying or singing the Canon aloud so that the congregation can follow him better. Plenty of times I’ve been to a TLM where you barely get through the Sanctus and the priest is already at the consecration. An aloud Canon would make active participation by the people more easy in that regard.
  2. That the Chalice may be optionally given tot he laity so that they too may drink the Blood of Christ as was done in all rites of the Church before the Middle ages.
  3. That the readings and Gospel be proclaimed by the priest in the vernacular only without first being said in Latin.
  4. That con celebration be a legitimate option for priest as well as bishops.
These are obviously only suggestions. I’m sure more then a few rad trads will blow a gasket at them but what do the vast majority of people think?
Click to expand...
I’ll buy item 1 but only as far as it be recited aloud, with the exception of the “minor elevation” (Per Ipsum …) which I think should be sung (as it was for about 15 minutes in the ill-fated “interim Missal” of 1965).

As for item 2, no, I don’t agree. As far as I would go is intinction.

On item 3, I have a split opinion: in missa lecta (Low Mass) or missa recitata (Dialogue Mass) yes, I agree. In High Mass (missa solemnis or missa cantata), no, I do not agree. When the readings are sung, the “flow” in Latin is far superior.

And for item 4, a resounding NO! I’m sure someone will bring up concelebration in the Eastern and Oriental traditions, and as a “cradle Oriental” I know all about that. As I see it, it belongs where it belongs, and that is not as a regular event in the Latin Rite.

Beyond those items, I will add:
  • I’d love to see the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar done aloud.
  • I would also put on my “wish list” that the liturgical action generally be paused when something is being sung (Gloria, Credo, etc.). It has always bothered me when the priest goes on alone, at least it does when the Ordinary is sung in chant. (When some of the absurdly long classical settings are used, yeah, I understand. I’d probably go on ahead myself rather than sit there for 10 minutes twiddling my thumbs.)
 
I think a better understanding of the liturgy and it’s development will help you see how such sweeeping changes are not only not neccessary but detrimental. Perhaps some Michael Davies, Fr. Ripperger, and Dietrich vonHildebrand is in order.
 
Yours_Truly said:
I’ve got a better idea. Leave the Traditional Mass alone and fix the one that’s broken.
Click to expand...
Amen and amen!!! 👍

Let the Pauline rite be fixed, if it can be, with reference to an actual standard and not some ever-moving target.
 
Aramis said:
Better still: make the EF part of a separate Church Sui Iuris, and keep the OF and EF favoring crowds under separate bishops who share their liturgical norms… Something which Archbishop Lefebvre had asked for in the 1980’s.

It works for the Eastern Churches in Union…
Click to expand...
Sounds good to me. If that were to happen, I bet in one generation we would go from the current 99% Novus Ordo and 1% Traditional, to 99% Traditional and 1% Novus Ordo.
 
Aramis said:
Better still: make the EF part of a separate Church Sui Iuris, and keep the OF and EF favoring crowds under separate bishops who share their liturgical norms… Something which Archbishop Lefebvre had asked for in the 1980’s.

It works for the Eastern Churches in Union…
Click to expand...
The situations are not even similar.

Would you say the same for those Slav Byzantines who prefer the DL in Old Slavonic? (And yes, they do exist, and they are not necessarily ethnic Slavs.) For example, two Ruthenian jurisdictions sui juris? Two Ukrainian jurisdictions sui juris?

Perhaps erecting “Personal Prelatures” for the EF, but that’s as far I can see it go without crossing the line. And given the bevy of obstructionist bishops (at least in the US and Canada) I don’t even think that’s a good idea. It’s right back to that silly “indult” business: if one happens to live nearby, fine. If not, sorry one gets the OF like it or not. No, that would be far worse than the status quo.
 
malphono said:
The situations are not even similar.

Would you say the same for those Slav Byzantines who prefer the DL in Old Slavonic? (And yes, they do exist, and they are not necessarily ethnic Slavs.) For example, two Ruthenian jurisdictions sui juris? Two Ukrainian jurisdictions sui juris?

Perhaps erecting “Personal Prelatures” for the EF, but that’s as far I can see it go without crossing the line. And given the bevy of obstructionist bishops (at least in the US and Canada) I don’t even think that’s a good idea. It’s right back to that silly “indult” business: if one happens to live nearby, fine. If not, sorry one gets the OF like it or not. No, that would be far worse than the status quo.
Click to expand...
The situation with the various Byzantines is that they have the right to address their bishops about their liturgy, and to have organic change. And, quite honestly, there is an approval to use the old Slavonic text in both the UGCC and the BCMCoP.

At present, the Trad. Latins don’t; because the bishops are opposed, most can’t get fair hearing, even tho’ they have the right to make their needs known. A separate hierarchy would allow the continued organic growth of the EF Mass as appropriate, and without the exceedingly different direction the OF has taken being reflected. It would insulate the TL’s from the anti-EF bishops.

I also feel the Mozarabics, Bragans, and Ambrosians should be given the opportunity to do so as well, if desired by the priests and faithful of those communities.
 
Ottaviani said:
I’ll do you one better: re-instate the 1962 Good Friday prayer:)
Click to expand...
Amen brother. I don’t think I ever read about the Pope in his earlier days referring to the Traditional Latin Mass as a banal, off-the-cuff fabrication like he did the Novus Ordo. Fix the one that is broken or get rid of it. Leave the one that has produced essentially all our saints alone. Let us reflect on a statement from our beloved Archbishop Bugnini, the NO’s architect:

“We must strip from our Catholic Prayers and Catholic Liturgy all that represents the shadow of a stumbling block for our brethren, that is the Protestants.” Archbishop Hannibal Bugnini, 1965, L’Osservatore Romano.

In other words, sacrifice Truth to accommodate heretics. Let’s change Jesus’ very own sacred words during the consecration. And let’s change…

Truly beyond belief this really happened.
 
Let’s change Jesus’ very own sacred words during the consecration.
Those words have always been liturgical in the different classical Liturgies, and never exact quotes from Scripture.

Did you know that?
 
Well I
  1. Don’t think that a separate rite for the Trdientine mass is going to be set up anytime soon. If you read the Moto Proprio then you’ll see that this is not the direction that Rome is wanting to go. The Church holds both the Tridentine and No to be both valid forms of the same right, This is fixed Church law so establishing a separate jurisdiction for the Latin mass would contradict it.
  2. After having talked with trads and experienced what their like, I definitely don’t want to be in a separate rite with them. This would probably mean that the radicals would take over control of things and force more moderate minded souls like me to the door. I like having things under the watchful eye of the local bishop, be he good or bad. I want to believe as the Church believes at present while still being able to participate in a Latin mass. This is the great thing about the SP. It allows individual, more moderate priest and parishes to institute a TLM so that more moderate people can attend. It’s a big difference from going to and having to put up with antics one usually finds in established trad chapels.
BTW, I have read books by Davis and the like. They are well written but I do not feel that I have to agree with every statement and evaluation they make. Also, why is an FSSP priest criticizing the Ordinary form of the mass? I thought they were supposed to take more moderate tone towards things like the Society of St John Cantus? Who gives them the right to hold such an attitude? Considering that he’s a big wig in the FSSP, its not wonder why this order is held in suspicion by many bishops and faithful a like.
 
Kearney said:
BTW, I have read books by Davis and the like. They are well written but I do not feel that I have to agree with every statement and evaluation they make. Also, why is an FSSP priest criticizing the Ordinary form of the mass? I thought they were supposed to take more moderate tone towards things like the Society of St John Cantus? Who gives them the right to hold such an attitude Considering that he’s a big wig in the FSSP, its not wonder why this order is held in suspicion by many bishops and faithful a like.
Click to expand...
Who says that the Pauline rite can’t be criticized? The present Holy Father has done so himself. So has Msgr. Klaus Gamber, whom the Holy Father has called one of the greatest liturgists (it was Gamber’s book that basically caused me to decide never to assist at the Pauline rite again, if possible; it is that strong a case, made by a man who received glowing accolades by Cardinal Ratzinger.) Dietrich von Hildebrand strongly criticized the Pauline rite, as has his wife Alice. They are both held in high regard even in non-traditionalist circles. Michael Davies was well respected by the Holy Father as well.

Once again, unfortunately, we find that you really don’t know what you’re talking about.
 
Wow Dave, thanks for diligently lurking after me and dissecting every post for perceived errors.

I don’t know, it may be permissible but it seems kind of imprudent for a priest to publicly criticize a mass which is used by over 95% of Roman rite faithful. Does he not think that it could cause scandal for the faithful in any way?

Also the Pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, has criticized the Tridentine rite in the past as well. He made some comments years back about the old liturgy being “fossielized” and “frozenin time”. I am all in favor of the TLM but one can’t just deny that even as great a man as the Pope (who obviously has a deep love for liturgy) has not been critical of some of the older ways of doing things.
 
Suggesting changes to the Gregorian Rite is absurd. It lacks nothing.

The only thing lacking is effort by lazy laity. Those who won’t take the time to learn to use a missal.
 
well, to clarify an earlier thought, most of the changes that had occurred in the Mass (prior to it’s attempted usurpation in the 60’s) were concerned with heresy. As such, through time additions were made to confront those errors e.g., Nicene Creed. So, if there ever were to be changes, I would imagine there would be additions to the liturgy that address the sorts of heresies we are currently confronted with, e.g, Modernism.
 
I wish the pope would make it OK for the EF to be done in English–let the Holy Father make sure the English translation was as good as possible.

Would the universe blow up if the EF was ever done in English?

Just think if absolutely NOTHING was changed about the EF but it was done in English.

How bad would that be?

Would the saints in heaven rip their robes to shreds and shout blasphemy?
 
How 'bout no changes in the EF at all? For that matter, how 'bout no changes in the OF either?

John
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top