Reconnecting the New Mass with our Tradition?

[GandalfTheWhite]

There are many practices and rituals in the Extraordinary Form that you will simply not see in 99.9999% of the Ordinary masses and in the end the New Mass feels totally disconnected from the tradition of the Roman Church. This does not only include Ad Orientem orientation, absence of altar rails etc. (we all know what should be happening here) but also includes rather less obvious practices such as priest holding together his thumb and index finger after touching the host, making many crosses including crosses with the chalice, using the maniple and much more. Now, my question is quite simple. Supposing that the rituals used during the Extraordinary Form do not contradict with the instructions for the New Mass, can a priest lawfully use them in the spirit of the Hermeneutics of Continuity?

 

[markadm]

Certainly I’ve seen the fingers and thumbs thing. Though I can’t comment on whether or not these things are “allowed”.

 

[Dempsey1919]

The Ordinary Form of the Mass can be celebrated ad orientem and in latin but the deep symbolism of the Tridentine Mass is missing. A priest could incorporate elements of the Tridentine Mass into the N.O but he would be creating a new Mass. The Pauline Missal was created without the ancient symbolism of the Tridentine Mass and it would be wrong for a priest to insert elements without permission. The laity have the right to hear Mass celebrated according to the GIRM. If they crave the ancient rituals and symbolism then they should attend the EF.

The Mass of Paul VI does not resemble any other Mass in the history of the Roman rite. It is an innovation that was entirely new. The organic development of the Roman Mass was ruptured beyond recognition. The Roman rite was practically abolished with the creation of the new Mass. While the new Mass is valid and beautiful, the ancient traditions of the roman rite are gone. We have lost much of our uniqueness and culture. I don’t care what anybody says, the New Mass is a protestantised version of the Mass. The Tridentine Mass is unique to the Roman rite of the Church and it is distincly different from all Protestant services.

Personally, I would love to see the new Mass changed in order to bring it closer to the traditions of the Roman rite. I believe that Sacrosanctum Concilium has yet to be implemented and it would be great to see a Mass that was a hybrid of the Tridentine and Pauline Mass. I like both forms of the Mass but I value continuity and I believe that a Tridentine Mass with the reforms of Sacrosanctum Concilium would solve all of our liturgical problems.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Certainly I’ve seen the fingers and thumbs thing. Though I can’t comment on whether or not these things are “allowed”.

I know a priest that is trying to reintroduce these things and borrows from the Old Rite. Now, if I ever become a priest, I hope to do this.

These are my thoughts on this subject. These things were part of our holy tradition for hundreds and hundreds of years and they still are. They once have been obligatory but they aren’t now in the New Mass. This doesn’t mean that because the instructions don’t mention them that they were abrogated. In cannon law, unless something is explicitly changed (or contradicted) it remains even if its omitted (vails ). This makes perfect sense and I don’t think that this would be very different from how we should generally approach the the things we do. I don’t think that the Church at that time wished to abrogate these things by not mentioning them. I think they disappeared in the Spirit of VII because people thought that that’s was the intention of the Church and that she has somewhat changed.

Some people might say: right, so if you can do these things then some other priests can bring their pet monkeys to mass. But I think that while Hermeneutics of Continuity is a reality and necessary (and not because I say it), invention of new things and Hermeneutics of Discontinuity was never intended by the Church and His Holiness Benedict XVI clearly tells us that this is a fantasy. So I think this argument is very weak.

Comments?

 

[Eilish_Maura]

I know a priest that is trying to reintroduce these things and borrows from the Old Rite. Now, if I ever become a priest, I hope to do this.

These are my thoughts on this subject. These things were part of our holy tradition for hundreds and hundreds of years and they still are. They once have been obligatory but they aren’t now in the New Mass. This doesn’t mean that because the instructions don’t mention them that they were abrogated. In cannon law, unless something is explicitly changed (or contradicted) it remains even if its omitted (vails ). This makes perfect sense and I don’t think that this would be very different from how we should generally approach the the things we do. I don’t think that the Church at that time wished to abrogate these things by not mentioning them. I think they disappeared in the Spirit of VII because people thought that that’s was the intention of the Church and that she has somewhat changed.

Some people might say: right, so if you can do these things then some other priests can bring their pet monkeys to mass. But I think that while Hermeneutics of Continuity is a reality and necessary (and not because I say it), invention of new things and Hermeneutics of Discontinuity was never intended by the Church and His Holiness Benedict XVI clearly tells us that this is a fantasy. So I think this argument is very weak.

Comments?

Would some priests doing these things make them better priests? Make them more appealing to some factions? Should some of these same things, if no in the TLM, be added there too??

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

Certainly I’ve seen the fingers and thumbs thing. Though I can’t comment on whether or not these things are “allowed”.

I know a priest that is trying to reintroduce these things and borrows from the Old Rite. Now, if I ever become a priest, I hope to do this.

These are my thoughts on this subject. These things were part of our holy tradition for hundreds and hundreds of years and they still are. They once have been obligatory but they aren’t now in the New Mass. This doesn’t mean that because the instructions don’t mention them that they were abrogated. In cannon law, unless something is explicitly changed (or contradicted) it remains even if its omitted (vails ). This makes perfect sense and I don’t think that this would be very different from how we should generally approach the the things we do. I don’t think that the Church at that time wished to abrogate these things by not mentioning them. I think they disappeared in the Spirit of VII because people thought that that’s was the intention of the Church and that she has somewhat changed.

Some people might say: right, so if you can do these things then some other priests can bring their pet monkeys to mass. But I think that while Hermeneutics of Continuity is a reality and necessary (and not because I say it), invention of new things and Hermeneutics of Discontinuity was never intended by the Church and His Holiness Benedict XVI clearly tells us that this is a fantasy. So I think this argument is very weak.

Comments?

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

By the way, I’m posting this because I don’t know. I would like to see a discussion. While I would like to hear a certain answer, I’m not advocating one or the other. I wouldn’t like to advocate something that is unlawful and to be honest I heard people tell me both things.

But take the example of the thing with the thumb and index finger. The instructions don’t tell you what you should be doing with the fingers. So are you supposed to do nothing and assume that this means that what happened in the past was abrogated for the New Mass? Or assume that nothing has changed? My guts tell me that doing something that was does before is good and it can’t be compared with inventing new things, even if that in both cases you would be doing something that is explicitly not mentioned.

When a priest is going up to the high altar it was normal to hold his alb. This is of course not mentioned in the instructions for the new mass. So it shouldn’t it be done? I’ve seen it done in one of the English oratories.

---

Eilish Maura:

Would some priests doing these things make them better priests?

Not necessarily

Make them more appealing to some factions?

Well, I’m sure some would complain. But then some people shiver when they hear about the Mass being offered Ad Orientem.

Should some of these same things, if no in the TLM, be added there too??

What do you mean?

---

Dempsey1919:

A priest could incorporate elements of the Tridentine Mass into the N.O but he would be creating a new Mass. The Pauline Missal was created without the ancient symbolism of the Tridentine Mass and it would be wrong for a priest to insert elements without permission.

The question is, were these elements abrogated in the New Mass or was it just no longer required? That’s what I’m unsure of. I agree if the fact that these things are not mentioned means that they should not be done then they should not be done. I’m just not sure if it means that they should not be done. And this is why I’m asking.

I think it is important to reconnect the New Mass with the Old Mass but of course the it should not be done unlawfully.

 

[Fuerza]

The Ordinary Form of the Mass can be celebrated ad orientem and in latin but the deep symbolism of the Tridentine Mass is missing. A priest could incorporate elements of the Tridentine Mass into the N.O but he would be creating a new Mass. The Pauline Missal was created without the ancient symbolism of the Tridentine Mass and it would be wrong for a priest to insert elements without permission. The laity have the right to hear Mass celebrated according to the GIRM. If they crave the ancient rituals and symbolism then they should attend the EF.

The Mass of Paul VI does not resemble any other Mass in the history of the Roman rite. It is an innovation that was entirely new. The organic development of the Roman Mass was ruptured beyond recognition. The Roman rite was practically abolished with the creation of the new Mass. While the new Mass is valid and beautiful, the ancient traditions of the roman rite are gone. We have lost much of our uniqueness and culture. I don’t care what anybody says, the New Mass is a protestantised version of the Mass. The Tridentine Mass is unique to the Roman rite of the Church and it is distincly different from all Protestant services.

Personally, I would love to see the new Mass changed in order to bring it closer to the traditions of the Roman rite. I believe that Sacrosanctum Concilium has yet to be implemented and it would be great to see a Mass that was a hybrid of the Tridentine and Pauline Mass. I like both forms of the Mass but I value continuity and I believe that a Tridentine Mass with the reforms of Sacrosanctum Concilium would solve all of our liturgical problems.

The NO parish which I attend does a 12pm Mass which is pretty close to a hybrid. The Mass is done mostly in Latin with traditional hymns. This past Sunday they even brought in the choir which usually performs at the local Tridentine Parish (which I also attend when I have the chance) to perform Gregorian chant. Communion is distributed exclusively by the priests and deacon and everyone receives kneeling with most receiving on the tongue. The church itself also looks very traditional with its paintings, statues, stained glass, communion rail, and a large crucifix hanging right above the altar. While I realize that this Mass is not a true hybrid since it follows exclusively the Pauline rubrics, I think that there would be far fewer complaints even from traditionalists if all NO Masses were done in this manner.

Of course, and many will disagree with me, I think that the best solution would be a full return to the EF with an option to say most of the Mass in an approved vernacular translation. In my opinion the Kyrie, Canon, and maybe a few hymns should remain in Greek and Latin respectively, but I personally would have no problem with the rest being in the vernacular. I realize that something like this has been attempted in the past, but maybe it’s time for another shot.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

poke

By the way, is there anything mentioned about headwear? I don’t know about any place where that is explicitelly allowed but I admit that it could be somewhere and I just don’t know it. Now it is commonly accepted that priests can wear biretta during Novus Ordo, isn’t it? But they obviously can’t it would be an abuse to wear a baseball cap. So, if both are not mentioned then how come biretta is allowed unless we follow the same logic as the one I presented below?

Could anyone please help me with this one?

 

[TMGallyon85]

I have attend only one EF mass and I can say it was so much different from the OF. Sad that in the OF even the vestements have been severely simplified. Priests and deacons look like protestant ministers. And everybodys favorite… The Cranmer Table. YUK. I am glad the Holy Father is bringing back many traditions that were lost. Another thing that I love about the EF is they retain traditional Holy Water Fonts and Baptismal fonts. At my church and I am sure many others here, we have the “flowing rock” font in the “atrium”. When Babies are baptized, they used a Glass Bowl of holy water from the flowing rock. And I am debating why I should not join the EF 45 minutes away. Sounds like it is far, but it is so much more reverent.