Restoring Sensory Experience to the Ordinary Form Mass

[YoungTradCath]

Frankly, it sounds to me more like “Modernism on tap” - eerily similar to the “spirit of Vatican II” which, relatively unchecked, lead the Church so far off track in so many areas. The Church is called to form the world, not the world to form the Church - that has always been the problem.

Sensory experience? What the heck is he talking about? Why not restore the knowledge of, and reverence for the supernatural nature of the mass and let the sensory take care of itself?

I think we can use academic-ish or anthropolgical-ish terms like sensory experience with reference to the liturgy as long as we are grounded in their use.

Analogy: many Catholics recoil at the use of the term fetus because of its association with murder mills. I admit that I have a similar reaction. However, the term is a valid medical and developmental term and has value for that reason. In medical settings it can be disingenuous to talk about a growing child in terms of “the person in there” because it might delude the non-initiated into thinking the metabolic and physiological functions of a growing human inside his mother are the same as those of a grown adult. However, the term must be used in the right ways.

 

[Aramis]

The divine worship liturgy (Roman Mass, Syriac Quorbono/Qurbana, Byzantine Divine Liturgy, etc,) has, according to the Second Vatican Council, several roles to fill.

First and foremost, it is the sacrament of the Eucharist, the uniting of the faithful with the Last Supper and thus with Christ himself.

Secondarily, it is to educate and edify the people in the ways of the church. (If it wasn’t, the entire liturgy of the word could go away from all of the above named liturgical forms.)

Third, it is to call the faithful together. (Hence the ban, ancient in origin, upon celebrating the divine worship services in solitude… at least one other must be present beside the priest.) Through joint prayer, we strengthen each other.

Fourth, it is to be a thing of beauty, which calls forth to the rest of the world.

The culmination of all of these is that the OF Roman Mass, done per the rubrics, should be doing all 4. Far too often, it hits only two or three…

 

[SMHW]

I recently went to a Theology on Tap session on “The History of the Mass” and the priest who gave the session lamented that the OF needed to regain that sensory experience that the EF had gained through centuries of liturgical experimentation and cultural shaping.

Let’s say that within the confines of liturgical laws, which are obviously open to implementation on a diocesan level by the diocesan bishop, Masses of this progressive sort do not wholly constitute liturgical abuse. Discuss.

youtube.com/watch?v=IB5Ynw8YOgs

I have never seen anyone describe the EF as having had centuries of liturgical experimentation and culture shaping before!

As far as comparing the EF to the OF in regards to sensory Experience… I’ll just say they are different but each has their own kinds of sensory (name removed by moderator)uts. And EF Masses prior to Vatican II would have varied greatly one from another. If you asked someone who always attended a High Mass or a sung Mass what the EF was like you would probably get a very different answer than you would from someone who made a point of avoiding High Masses and sung Masses.

 

[powerofk]

Part of the reason why the priest said this is because 99.9% of Catholics today experience the Ordinary Form, many don’t even know the Extraordinary Form still exists, and most of us who do know it still exists have never been to a church that celebrates the Mass using that form of the liturgy. The closest I’ve been to is a chapel that uses the Ordinary Form using the ad orientum altar - and that’s primarily due to the size of the chapel more than anything - there wouldn’t be room for the altar in the chapel otherwise.

But I do know how much touch, sight, sound, and smell can add to worship. During the Easter Triduum, Catholic churches everywhere fill the senses with this - the washing of the feet on Holy Thursday, followed by the incensing of the gifts and the receiving of the oils. We then process with the LORD and adore Him. On Good Friday, the norms call for absolute silence as our LORD dies on the cross - we then see and feel the cross with our hands or our lips. Then, during the Easter Vigil, we see and feel the fire, have a candlelight vigil and hear the message of salvation history in nearly complete darkness. The Gloria is sung with bells and the church is illuminated, and usually decorated with flowers and lillies celebrating the LORD’s ressurection. The Book of the Gospels is processed and incensed during the great Alleluia of Easter. We then see others get baptized and renew our own baptismal vows, either getting sprinkled ourselves, or in procession. The newly baptized are then confirmed, and their garments are changed. Then, the air is filled with incense again as the gifts are again incensed. Just writing about this brings tears of joy to my eyes. If we could illuminate the senses in the Ordinary Form more than we do normally (the Triduum would still need to be much more), then we could bring our spirits more into worship.

 

[ProVobis]

Of course, as you know, the Second Vatican Council called not for active participation (participatio activa) but called for actual participation (participatio actuosa).

This is true and it is an important distinction. Everyone, for example, isn’t expected to incense the altar or bring bread and wine from home. No one other than the priest does the sacrificing. At least that’s the way I read it.

 

[triumphguy]

When the Latin mass was the Norm, the only form of the mass, it was the “usual” mass, mass as usual, and so I’m sure many celebrants and lay people became blasé if not bored.

Nowadays the only people who attend/celebrate the Latin mass are those that treasure it, or who are at least interested in it.

I think people’s attitudes (and what their attitude impels them to “bring to” the mass) make the biggest difference in the celebration of the mass, not the actual form.

If the attitude is blasé, the celebration will be banal whether it’s the OF or the EF.

 

[janeway529]

Wait a minute…

Is there an an emoticon for someone shaking the cobwebs out of their head to ensure that they read what they think they just read?

The EF was formed through centuries of experimentation and was shaped by secular culture? Did I read that right?

-Tim-

Historical developments can be surprising. A few examples:

–The Kyrie is kept from the time the Mass was in Greek, before St. Jerome was asked by the pope to translate it into Latin, the vernacular at the time.

–Another example is the addition of the Gloria and the Sanctus. Pepin the Short, wanting to unify France, felt that religion could help him do this, and so he strove for a uniform liturgy. Pepin asked Rome for documents, but found the liturgy too solemn for the lively Franks, and set out to adapt the Roman liturgy. Pepin’s son Charlemagne, with the help of the monk Alcuin, set about adapting the Roman liturgy. Much Gregorian Chant was used, the name of the local bishop was prayed for by name, and the people chanted the Gloria and the Sanctus. This new Franco-Roman Mass spread to Germany, then from Germany to Rome, to spread a new Germano-Roman Mass.

–Kneeling during Communion were originally Gallic practices that were later adopted by Rome. During this time (between 751-1014), the priest and the altar became more removed from the people, and the Mass was characterized by many complex gestures, kisses, and genuflections. The priest elevated the host high so people could see it. People received Communion less and less - it was enough to see the host.

–Emperor Henry II in 1014 demanded that the Creed be included in the Mass, showing the influence of Germany on Rome.