Should the Church return to the old rite?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic21
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually until you went into more detail in that post that IS exactly what you said. You said only that “There was a vibrant parish in our diocese with very high attendance and participation. A new pastor came in who made it clear he preferred the EF and so in addition to offering it, he made the OF as close to it as he could. People simply abandoned the parish for neighboring ones.

You thus, in the post to which I responded about that parish, with absolutely nothing ‘changed’ from the ‘vibrant high attendance parish’ save a pastor who offered the EF and ‘made the OF as close as he could” resulted in “people simply abandoned the parish for neighboring ones.”

Now please tell me how, reading what you said and what I responded with, one would NOT take away that the reason that “vibrant parish’ was ‘abandoned’ was, in your own words, from the priest offering an OF that was ‘more like the EF’. . . Or, as I summarized, a group of people who decided not to worship because they did not care for the style of the Mass.

When people come here and state for example that due to the ‘style of Mass being changed in a way that differed greatly from the previous priest that they have ‘left that parish’ it is all considered hunky dory if the reason they left’ was that the change was more to an “EF” style. . . But if they dare to state that the change was more to an OF style and they prefer an EF they are castigated.

Further we have all kinds of anecdotes from people about how fussy, rigid, and nasty “EF” Masses are, and how people just leave them in droves and never want “traditional stuff’ again because of the ‘bad attitudes’ and leaving An EF parish is often cheered, because ‘rigid’ you know.

I just thought it very interesting that apparently it isn’t sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander when it comes to people who ‘abandon’ (your own words) their parish because of “style’ changes.

Leave your parish when the Mass becomes more ‘EF”? How perfectly understandable.

Leave your parish when the Mass becomes more “OF”? How elitist snob, but exactly what one would expect of ‘rigid’ people. . .
 
My parish. We have both the OF and the EF and the church is probably less than half full for the OF mass, mainly with elderly folks, and the Latin Mass is filled to the rafters with lots of big families.
 
Whew. Well, that was certainly a stretch. Somehow, you assumed ‘vibrant’ referred to just the liturgy. A parish being vibrant has more going on than just its rite.

Also, I was trying to be polite about the priest, but yes, “strong preference” for the EF really meant “dripping with disdain” for the OF. Making the OF as much like the EF as possible meant Latin, his back to the people —in other words, he skirted the requirement that he offer Sunday Masses in the Ordinary Form by making them as much like the EF as possible.

Finally, no one suggested there was anything wrong with people who prefer the EF finding a parish that offers it. Nor should it be a problem in reverse. What was discussed was people who left OF parishes for communities not in full communion with the Church —a very different thing.

This parish was simply an example of the non-likelihood of the old rite “bringing people back.”
 
Last edited:
A. It is not ‘back to the people’. It is ‘turned toward the Lord.’ Or, if you prefer, liturgical East which is again liturgically speaking the traditional direction of worship. It is not something found only in the EF. It is a legitimate option for the OF.
B. Latin is required in parts of all Masses, EF or OF, according to the actual documents of Vatican II.
C. Those two things ARE “Mass in the Ordinary Form”.
 
Last edited:
stpurl said:
It is a legitimate option for the OF.
Click to expand...
It is not an “option”, but rather “the norm”. The rubrics presume it. Facing the people rather than ad orientum is the option. IIRC, there are three or for points where the current rubrics call for turning to face the congregation.
 
The thing that would leave an emptiness in me most if the current Ordinary form were abandoned is versus populum. That makes Jesus more present to me in an organic way in the Eucharist.
 
Last edited:
Thank you, you are quite correct. I have tried to be more emphasizing to people who think that facing the people is the default position that ad orientum is a legitimate position also. Because so often if one tries to state, “wait, facing the people is actually not the norm” you will get a cadre of people bringing out all sorts of “but my bishop said”, “Even Pope Francis slapped down Cardinal Sarah for”, etc.

But if you can get people to at least accept an ‘option” (the OF has so many anyway) then they might be more willing to consider it.
 
So having the priest and people facing Jesus in the same way all together somehow would make you ‘empty?’
 
Guess what? People were leaving before Vatican II. Why do we think they held the council? Society in general, after WWII, became increasingly irreligious. Rolling the clock back only restores the known problems in the “old rite.”
 
stpurl said:
has now been 50 years in a state of people not knowing how to use it, often abusing it, and is still in a state of flux, as opposed to something else which has been in the form most know it, with small changes taking places over even longer than 50 year stretches, for at least 400 something years. .
Click to expand...
For Catholics living today, the OF is their Tradition. For most it’s all they’ve ever known, not the 400 years thing.

Are abuses or “flux” really common in your diocese since 1990? I had the TLM as a youth, took 4 years of Latin, and keep it up even today, and even I don’t follow the TLM as well as the OF. Do you think my adult sons would?

I see the beauty of the EF, have friends who are devout there, but were also devout at all masses before the TLM was available.

By all means make the EF available to those who want it. Let it grow 'organically" so to speak.
 
Last edited:
stpurl said:
A. It is not ‘back to the people’. It is ‘turned toward the Lord.’
B. Latin is required in parts of all Masses, EF or OF, according to the actual documents of Vatican II.
C. Those two things ARE “Mass in the Ordinary Form”.
Click to expand...
Nevertheless, as you are no doubt well aware, the OF is typically celebrated facing the people. And this is specifically allowed by the Constitution on the Liturgy:

“The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people ”

The use of the vernacular was to be decided by “the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority”, the conference of bishops. They have allowed the Mass to be said in English.

No one has suggested you cannot find a parish where the liturgy meets your spiritual needs, as long as it is indeed Catholic. I’m not sure why you’re so upset by the idea that, in this particular instance, the priest’s insistence on the EF, as well as his lack of interest in non-liturgical parish life, effectively gutted the parish. I’m sure you’d feel the same if a pastor came to a highly traditional parish where the EF was celebrated regularly and insisted on guitars.
 
Last edited:
stpurl said:
I just thought it very interesting that apparently it isn’t sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander when it comes to people who ‘abandon’ (your own words) their parish because of “style’ changes.
Click to expand...
Some even change parishes not over the style changes themselves but because of the upheaval in the parish that the speed of the changes or the manner in which the changes were accomplished. It can be upsetting to see long-time parishioners mad at each other and taking sides either for or against the pastor. That is not what any parish needs.
 
Last edited:
stpurl said:
A. It is not ‘back to the people’. It is ‘turned toward the Lord.’ Or, if you prefer, liturgical East which is again liturgically speaking the traditional direction of worship. It is not something found only in the EF. It is a legitimate option for the OF.
Click to expand...
I prefer “all of us facing the same direction,” personally. After all, unless we pray in one big circle, someone is always going to “have their back” to somebody. What is the problem with having to see some backs, if it because we are all are facing in the same direction?
 
My diocese has had the EF, at first by indult, since the early 1990’s. My diocese now has a EF/OF Parish.
The OF is celebrated ad orientium, with Latin propers, chant, Communion at the altar rail, only male alter servers, etc.
The OF is at 9am, the EF at 11:15. The parish is easily accessibme, with lots of on-site parking, in a decent neighborhood. The church seats almost 1000 people.
The average weekly attendance for both Masses is about 300, with the numbers pretty evenly split between the two. My OF parish has 300-350 at every one of its weekly Masses- 1 on Saturday and 2 on Sunday. And what would be considered a “liberal, progressive” parish by CAF standards,that I frequent, has 4 Masses every weekend in a sanctuary that seats 500, that is filled to capacity and then some every week.
So, based on my experience in my diocese, OP, your theory holds no water.
 
I think we make too big a deal of it. It depends on the configuration of the sanctuary/altar. At our abbey, where roughly 15 priests concelebrate, it would seem weird to see a semicircle of priests backs. Moreover the Benedictine tradition has a community orientation and facing the community has long pre-conciliar roots, especially in conventual churches where the altar was between the nave and the choir; the celebrant (only one in pre-Conciliar days) would in fact be facing his community of monks.

It’s wrong to think it never happened before the Council. In addition to the monastic example there were lots of churches where facing East meant that the priest had to face the people. I have a 1935 ceremonial that gives rubrics for both. In fact the term “ad orientem” isn’t even mentioned (it’s written in French) at least that I could find it.

The OF liturgy didn’t happen overnight after Vatican II BTW. The Liturgical Movement really got off the ground with Pius X and before that Dom Prosper Guéranger, first abbot of Solesmes, is considered the grandfather of the Liturgical Movement back in the mid-19th century, starting with the reform of Gregorian chant. Active participation started with the dialogue Mass back in the ‘20s. Versus populum, as a general concept, was first tested at Sant’ Anselmo Abbey in Rome in the 1940s; in the 1950s Holy Week was reformed, and there was simplification of the liturgical calendar and classes of feasts, as well as some Mass rubrics, in the 1950s under both Pius X and St. John XXIII.
 
po18guy said:
Rolling the clock back only restores the known problems in the “old rite.”
Click to expand...
It’s not about rolling the clock back. It’s about bringing forward what should have came forward, or restoring what was dropped along the way.
PetraG said:
I prefer “all of us facing the same direction,” personally. After all, unless we pray in one big circle, someone is always going to “have their back” to somebody. What is the problem with having to see some backs, if it because we are all are facing in the same direction?
Click to expand...
I heard one person say, the priest facing the people is like having the captain of the ship driving with his back facing the direction he is headed.
 
You need to take in account as well people who’ve never been to or known it’s even existed. It doesn’t necessarily mean every one in audience approves OF over EF if they’ve never been to one.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top