J
JulianN
Guest
Exactly. That parish is a shadow of its former self—it’s really sad.
- Status
S
stpurl
Guest
It sure is sad. How tragic that some people felt that unless they could worship the way they wanted they would just LEAVE.
Isn’t it kind of funny that we’re always being told that those awful EF people are the ones who leave their parishes when the priest won’t wiggle his pinky right. . .
But you’re telling us it was a bunch of tolerant OF ‘vibrant’ people who just couldn’t be vibrant unless they had it their way. . …
Isn’t it kind of funny that we’re always being told that those awful EF people are the ones who leave their parishes when the priest won’t wiggle his pinky right. . .
But you’re telling us it was a bunch of tolerant OF ‘vibrant’ people who just couldn’t be vibrant unless they had it their way. . …
R
rdj69
Guest
Going to a different parish that is in communion with Rome is not comparable to going to a different parish that is not in communion with Rome. That shouldn’t even need to be said.
J
JulianN
Guest
No, that’s not what I said. The new pastor disbanded all of the Christian charity projects, the parish festival, etc. He also made his personal disdain for the OF quite clear.
Parishioners didn’t leave the Church over it, and go somewhere not in communion with Rome. They simply found new parishes. The attendance at the parish is now a tiny fraction of what it was, which is indeed sad, but also indicative that the EF isn’t some magic bullet to bring people back.
J
jeannetherese
Guest
Was that in Portland? If so, it had its own thread a while back.
Portland parish protests new priest’s policies Liturgy and Sacraments
J
JulianN
Guest
No—and there was no protest. Just a quiet exodus. Also, the previous pastor hadn’t made any liturgical innovations that were outside the rubrics —but he did celebrate Mass in English, facing the people.
Last edited:
Yes.
Next question?
(Please understand that I do not say this in 100% seriousness, but understand as well, that neither am I 100% joking. Genies don’t fit back in bottles all that easily.)
O
OraLabora
Guest
No.
Next question?
Unless you make the following changes to the EF: available in the vernacular; dialogue Mass; spoken or chanted Canon; more EPs (well at least EP IV); three readings, on Sundays, 1st from the Old Testament (or from Acts in Eastertide); responsorial psalm instead of gradual to facilitate participation of the faithful… Oh wait…
But keep the Gregorian chant… oh wait…that’s what happens at our abbey (but they kept the Gradual).
D
Dovekin
Guest
No.
The EF and the OF are two forms of the same ritual. We should change the OF so its rubrics allow something similar to the EF to be celebrated. This would allow “the EF” to be celebrated as a version of the OF. It would also allow examination of the various parts that differ, to see which are preferred and why.
The point is to allow the two forms to influence each other. That will not happen as long as they are held up as immutable, irreconcilable norms. They need to be brought under the same umbrella, both be versions of the OF, if they are going to influence one another.
D
dochawk
Guest
a sure sign that this “discussion” is not going to end well . . .
Last edited:
Then that would be basically the missal of 1969 (Novus Ordo/OF).
There is a school of thought that says each and every part of the Traditional Latin Mass is there for a very specific reason, breathed by the Holy Spirit, and should not be lightly tampered with. Composing propers for newly canonized saints has always been done, and that is as it should be. As far as adding St Joseph to the Canon and eliminating the second Confiteor, well, I wouldn’t have done it, that’s all I can say.
The Novus Ordo Missae was basically a top-to-bottom recasting of the entire liturgy, with each little part, no matter how seemingly insignificant, being critically reviewed and reimagined — in other words, “take it all apart and put it all back together again”. It most emphatically was not a gradual organic development — quite the opposite. Some say this is precisely what was called for, some say this was the wrong approach altogether. Either way, what’s done is done.
Quite frankly, if I became Pope tomorrow — if I got a phone call from the Vatican one morning and the voice on the other end said “the Holy Father died during the night, but just before he went, he abrogated all provisions of canon law regarding election of the Pope, changed the procedure to the previous pontiff designating his successor, picked you, signed and sealed the motu proprio, and then breathed his last” — besides calling Benedict XVI and saying “would you like your old job back?”, I would do the following:
- immediately end communion in the hand
- immediately end lay eucharistic ministers
- and put together a commission to create dignified, literary, faithful translations of the TLM into each of the major languages, the goal being to offer the vernacular EF in lieu of the Novus Ordo after a grace period of 1-2 years, with proper catechesis so that the people would understand what was being done and why
Perhaps HBO could make a miniseries of it — “The Old Pope”
O
OraLabora
Guest
That was precisely my point.
This paper might shed some light on what Sacrosanctum Concilium perceived as needing renewal in the old liturgy:
There were certainly problems. Our abbot gave us a lengthy talk once in particularly about the legalism and rubricism. He said the rubrics were so complicated and arcane that it made it difficult for the Mass to be prayer for himself, so concentrated he was on getting every detail correct. Which he would want to do, as a monk of the Solesmes Congregation which is known for being sticklers about liturgical accuracy. The clericalism is another serious problem in the old liturgy. Perhaps making every Mass a dialogue Mass would be able to counter some of that though.
J
jeannetherese
Guest
Could you expand on this? How so?
O
OraLabora
Guest
It’s the sense that the laity were silent spectators and everything could only licitly be done by the priest. Here is what the paper says about it:
One of the solutions of Sacrosanctum Concilium:
Emeraldlady
New member
Unless it happens organically it isn’t going to happen. The Church wouldn’t divert so much time and energy going backwards rather than be devoted to the pilgrimage and occupied with the last things. Personally I think its disappointing that so much of peoples attention and time is focused on the issue.
M
MagdalenaRita
Guest
Have not read through everyone’s responses to this question I will just say that when the Novus Ordo, new Mass was introduced after VII, many people felt like the rug had been pulled out from under them and a great many people, including religious left the Church. We can not do that again.
That said, in Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s book, Christus Vincit, he discusses this and I think he made very good points.
One is there is nothing about going backwards with the old Rite, but restoring or bringing forward what we should have brought with us. (To me it’s like picking up the pearls we dropped along the way)
He indicates a slow process of restoring reverence with such as; ad orientum, some Latin, recieving the Eucharist in a more reverent way and restoring the Canon.
I myself would include more reverent music and fewer people around the altar.
There already is a process of restoration happening and if as time goes by the Church restores what was lost, whether it be the EF, or more reverence in the OF, that would be a great blessing.
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
Yes. The idea is not to reach some liturgical standard as fast as possible, but to bring along as many persons as possible to greater and greater reverence over time. That doesn’t happen either by doing nothing (except off in some cordoned off corner) or by trying to rush changes onto the faithful.
Last edited:
I
InThePew
Guest
To some extent this is true - depending on a number of things such as the size and demographic of the parish. Certainly, a lot of young people are finding in the EF something they’re searching for and not finding in the OF. Broadly, speaking I’d describe this as substance - they want intelligent and definitive answers to their questions, they want reverence and solemnity in the liturgy, and want “meat” in homilies. Sadly, too often what they get are loose, non-committal answers, “anything goes” approaches to the liturgy and dryer-fluff homilies.
That said, it would be wrong to assume that a universal switch to the EF would be some sort of panacea just as assuming that all masses prior to the post-conciliar reforms were anything like what’s experienced today. Familiarity, as the saying goes, breeds contempt; the priests who say the EF today are very committed to the liturgy and having gone to the time and trouble to learn the EF do it well.
Still, there is much beauty and richness in the OF which is sadly overlooked - or perhaps lost amidst the casualness at times. The increase in scripture alone is something that never seems to get the attention it deserves. More than that though, the emphasis on the active participation by the people is particularly important - they are after all, also offering the sacrifice and indeed, offering themselves as a sacrifice. Sadly, this seems to be downplayed in the EF - to put it bluntly, praying the rosary during mass isn’t participating- it’s hardly even observing! Certainly, the change to the vernacular was intended to facilitate this.
The problem isn’t the form it’s the way in which it’s done. What I think the way in which the EF is said shows us is the reverence and solemnity which is lacking from too many OF masses. Againk this isn’t a panacea and there’s a lot more to it than that but at the same time, there’s much to be said for dignity in liturgy - as my mother would say, if it’s worth doing at all for God it’s worth doing well; and everything’s worth doing well for God!
C
commenter
Guest
Here’s our current Diocesan TLM (pre virus):
A few Diocesan clergy take turns, they obviously like to do it. There’s always a well prepared homily. People drive long distances, everyone is very attentive. The choir is well rehearsed, altar boys little saints.
There’s no hurry, it goes on up to 90 minutes. After, there’s always a magnificent brunch, ladies really go all out. It’s a half day affair all told.
Here’s what I remember from the TLM pre V2:
Some priests are more devout, some seem distracted. They all have to rush things along because the Masses are every hour , and it takes time to clear the parking lot.
A third of the people are saying the rosary. Most Sunday Masses are low Mass, some people are following along in a Missal but many are not.
It’s tempting to see the current TLM and imagine that’s what it used to be like everywhere, and that’s what all Masses would be like today, if all the current priests and people were mandated to the EF.
A few Diocesan clergy take turns, they obviously like to do it. There’s always a well prepared homily. People drive long distances, everyone is very attentive. The choir is well rehearsed, altar boys little saints.
There’s no hurry, it goes on up to 90 minutes. After, there’s always a magnificent brunch, ladies really go all out. It’s a half day affair all told.
Here’s what I remember from the TLM pre V2:
Some priests are more devout, some seem distracted. They all have to rush things along because the Masses are every hour , and it takes time to clear the parking lot.
A third of the people are saying the rosary. Most Sunday Masses are low Mass, some people are following along in a Missal but many are not.
It’s tempting to see the current TLM and imagine that’s what it used to be like everywhere, and that’s what all Masses would be like today, if all the current priests and people were mandated to the EF.
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
Great post.
- Status