Should the TLM become the Ordinary Form?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mickey_Jackson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mickey_Jackson

Guest
Until recently, I was of the firm opinion that the 1970 Missal (the Novus Ordo) should remain the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, perhaps with a few modifications to encourage greater reverence (more use of Latin chant, celebration ad orientum, etc.) But several weeks ago, I attended my first Tridentine Mass at a local parish, and quite honestly, the Novus Ordo seems somewhat banal in comparison (I’m on vacation and there’s no TLM nearby). I’m not questioning the validity of the NO, or its legitimacy as an approved form of the Roman Rite, but it seems clear to me that the Old Mass is simply better liturgy. Because of this, I’m starting to think that perhaps the Church would benefit if the 1962 Missal were reinstated as the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite; or, alternatively, if a “hybrid Mass” were implemented, incorporating elements of both the 1962 (i.e. Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, Offertory Prayers, Last Gospel) and 1970 (vernacular in some parts of the Mass) Missals. Perhaps the 1965 Missal is the standard to aspire to. I’m no expert, so I’m wondering: what do you think should be done with the Roman Rite? What should the “Reform of the Reform” sought by Pope Benedict XVI consist of?
 
I would think the “hybrid” idea (better to think of it as a reunification of the two missals) has to be the ultimate goal. But I wouldn’t use the 1965 Missal as a guide. Rather, I’d rethink the entire Missal based on the experience and scholarship since 1965.
 
Marc_Aupiais said:
It should be up ton the church
Click to expand...
Obviously, we should all abide by whatever the Holy Father ultimately decides. This is why I attend the Novus Ordo, even though I prefer the TLM. But as the excellent (and often misuunderstood) Second Vatican Council affirmed, the lay Faithful do have a right, and indeed a responsibility, to make their voices heard on matters such as this. What we do not have the right to do is elect ourselves Pope and dissent on matters that have already been decided. But I don’t think that the matter of how the reform of the liturgy should best be accomplished has been decided (though certainly, the validity and acceptability of any rite approved by the Church is beyond question). If it had, why would Pope Benedict XVI speak so often of his desire for a “reform of the reform”?
 
What i would do is basically take the Tridentine Rite as it existed before Vatican II, and then go through it and evaluate it in the light of the council.

So, starting with the Tridentine Rite, here’s what my immaginary and hypothetical Missal would look like.

Reintroduction of some of the Changes that were made to the Tridentine Rite in the 50’s and 60’s.

Option for some vernacuar in Low Masses, and possibly some, but less, vernacular in the Missa Cantata. The High Mass would remain unchanged. I’d be interested in knowing how Greek Orthodox parishes made the determination about what parts of the DL could be in the Vernacular and which should remain in Greek. We could follow their example.

Make the 'Missa Cantata," rather than the Low Mass the most usually celebrated form of mass, by promoting things popularized by the “novus Ordo,” such as having the congregation make the responses proper to it, usually said by the altar server, and having the congregation sing/chant parts of the mass along with the choir, including but not limited to the Gloria, Agnus Dei, and Credo.

So, what do people think of that?
 
Mickey_Jackson said:
Because of this, I’m starting to think that perhaps the Church would benefit if the 1962 Missal were reinstated as the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite; or, alternatively, if a “hybrid Mass” were implemented, incorporating elements of both the 1962 (i.e. Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, Offertory Prayers, Last Gospel) and 1970 (vernacular in some parts of the Mass) Missals. Perhaps the 1965 Missal is the standard to aspire to. I’m no expert, so I’m wondering: what do you think should be done with the Roman Rite? What should the “Reform of the Reform” sought by Pope Benedict XVI consist of?
Click to expand...
While I prefer the Extraordinary Form, myself, the Ordinary Form has benefits. I agree that the ultimate goal is most likely a hybrid of the two, and I think a good sign of that is the way that the Vatican mandated that they don’t want the individual priest taking it upon himself to mix and match.

As for the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and Last Gospel, these were actually not a part of the Mass. The Mass doesn’t technically begin until the Introit, and ends at the “Ite, Missa est,” so these two parts are technically both before and after the Mass, respectively. They were originally Sacristy prayers said in preparation and in thanksgiving, and after the Council of Trent were simply performed at the steps of the Altar and just after the dismissal. Likewise, the Leonine Prayers are also technically not part of the Mass. In the Ordinary Form, the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar were the inspiration for the Penitential Rite. This is not so obvious in the English translation (ICEL) of the Ordinary Form, but in the Latin it stands out.

Likewise, the reasoning behind changing the Offertory was that they seemed to indicate that the Consecration had already occurred. Now, I personally find them to be utterly beautiful. In my mind, a great compromise would be to have them used whenever the Roman Canon is used; and also to have the Roman Canon be the preferred Eucharistic Prayer, i.e. drastically limiting when the other Prayers can be used.
 
I think things should stay as they are now. This is why…

I am greatly dismayed at the lack of reverence shown in the NO Mass. People coming in shorts…poor behavior…distraction during Mass and the list goes on. I would hate to see that present itself at the TLM. If it becomes a regular thing where everyone has to go…then that is what it will soon become. I think both Masses have their place.
 
belgianwaffles9 said:
What i would do is basically take the Tridentine Rite as it existed before Vatican II, and then go through it and evaluate it in the light of the council.

So, starting with the Tridentine Rite, here’s what my immaginary and hypothetical Missal would look like.

Reintroduction of some of the Changes that were made to the Tridentine Rite in the 50’s and 60’s.

Option for some vernacuar in Low Masses, and possibly some, but less, vernacular in the Missa Cantata. The High Mass would remain unchanged. I’d be interested in knowing how Greek Orthodox parishes made the determination about what parts of the DL could be in the Vernacular and which should remain in Greek. We could follow their example.

Make the 'Missa Cantata," rather than the Low Mass the most usually celebrated form of mass, by promoting things popularized by the “novus Ordo,” such as having the congregation make the responses proper to it, usually said by the altar server, and having the congregation sing/chant parts of the mass along with the choir, including but not limited to the Gloria, Agnus Dei, and Credo.

So, what do people think of that?
Click to expand...
This sounds like the best of both worlds. And it’s a little more descriptive than my reference to a “hybrid Mass”
 
Mickey_Jackson said:
Obviously, we should all abide by whatever the Holy Father ultimately decides. This is why I attend the Novus Ordo, even though I prefer the TLM. But as the excellent (and often misuunderstood) Second Vatican Council affirmed, the lay Faithful do have a right, and indeed a responsibility, to make their voices heard on matters such as this. What we do not have the right to do is elect ourselves Pope and dissent on matters that have already been decided. But I don’t think that the matter of how the reform of the liturgy should best be accomplished has been decided (though certainly, the validity and acceptability of any rite approved by the Church is beyond question). If it had, why would Pope Benedict XVI speak so often of his desire for a “reform of the reform”?
Click to expand...
Not to butt into your business. But I’m glad you tried the TLM. I love it.

You can go to the TLM exclusively and still be fully obedient.

That said, about the Novus Ordo, only time will tell if it can be salvaged. It seems like the changes that would need to be applied to it, for a “Reform of the Reform,” would be staunchly opposed by the advocates of the OF.

I’m no expert, though.
 
I think that if Latin would more firmly implant itself into the OF Mass, and more reverence and better music found their way in, then the OF Mass as-is would be a decent compromise. Of course, keep the EF Mass with it as well and say it more than it is being said, but to get many of the issues out of the OF Mass that are there, I think that that would be sufficient.

Obviously, having the two meld together would be ideal, and I think it will happen eventually, but it must be as the result of gradual changes to that end, not a sudden “this is how it is, conform ASAP” change. We don’t want what happened immediately after VII to happen again.
 
belgianwaffles9 said:
What i would do is basically take the Tridentine Rite as it existed before Vatican II, and then go through it and evaluate it in the light of the council.

So, starting with the Tridentine Rite, here’s what my immaginary and hypothetical Missal would look like.

Reintroduction of some of the Changes that were made to the Tridentine Rite in the 50’s and 60’s.

Option for some vernacuar in Low Masses, and possibly some, but less, vernacular in the Missa Cantata. The High Mass would remain unchanged. I’d be interested in knowing how Greek Orthodox parishes made the determination about what parts of the DL could be in the Vernacular and which should remain in Greek. We could follow their example.

Make the 'Missa Cantata," rather than the Low Mass the most usually celebrated form of mass, by promoting things popularized by the “novus Ordo,” such as having the congregation make the responses proper to it, usually said by the altar server, and having the congregation sing/chant parts of the mass along with the choir, including but not limited to the Gloria, Agnus Dei, and Credo.

So, what do people think of that?
Click to expand...
I think it’s a great idea.

If I were somehow magically given the power,

I would allow for the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular for 10 years or so (it’s already actually permitted. The 1962 Missal permits it itself. It also permits it to be said with the priest facing the people). Of course, I’d be encouraging the TLM the whole time, and Latin would be reintroduced gradually into the TLM.

It’d eventually be the TLM with the readings in the vernacular, like the SSPX Church in France does, where the priest reads softly in Latin, and a deacon reads the Bible in the vernacular out loud.
 
NicPais83 said:
While I prefer the Extraordinary Form, myself, the Ordinary Form has benefits. I agree that the ultimate goal is most likely a hybrid of the two, and I think a good sign of that is the way that the Vatican mandated that they don’t want the individual priest taking it upon himself to mix and match.

As for the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and Last Gospel, these were actually not a part of the Mass. The Mass doesn’t technically begin until the Introit, and ends at the “Ite, Missa est,” so these two parts are technically both before and after the Mass, respectively. They were originally Sacristy prayers said in preparation and in thanksgiving, and after the Council of Trent were simply performed at the steps of the Altar and just after the dismissal. Likewise, the Leonine Prayers are also technically not part of the Mass. In the Ordinary Form, the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar were the inspiration for the Penitential Rite. This is not so obvious in the English translation (ICEL) of the Ordinary Form, but in the Latin it stands out.

Likewise, the reasoning behind changing the Offertory was that they seemed to indicate that the Consecration had already occurred. Now, I personally find them to be utterly beautiful. In my mind, a great compromise would be to have them used whenever the Roman Canon is used; and also to have the Roman Canon be the preferred Eucharistic Prayer, i.e. drastically limiting when the other Prayers can be used.
Click to expand...
At our Solemn High Masses (I only go to those. They have them every Sunday and Tues. Night and some Fridays) they omit the last gospel, if I’m correct. They are also dialogue Masses, with the congregation chanting the responses, so there’s a lot of participation. Moreso than the Novus Ordo, I’d say.

I think we should the prayers at the foot of the altar, it really sets the pace as far as who the priest is and what he is going to do. Maybe we could add the penitential right in addition. The priest could prompt the people to begin the penitential rite, then go say his prayers at the foot of the altar, so there’s the best of both worlds.

Of course, at St. John Cantius, I believe they say the Novus Ordo with the same solemnity of the TLM. On EWTN, they have a Novus Ordo that is also pretty neat.

The biggest benefit of making the TLM like the NO would be ad orientem. Versus Populum just looks weird after you become used to the TLM. It completely changes the dynamic of the Mass, in my opinion.
 
I would like to see a Mass like was at Saint Mary’s in Sydney yesterday.👍 Seems to be the best of both worlds. The Holy Father giving communion only to those kneeling and on the tongue.
 
Just a quick question pertaining to the OP. If the TLM was never abrogated as Rome has finally admitted, wouldn’t the TLM have been the ‘ordinary form’ since Trent until the present day?
 
CassiusLonginus said:
Just a quick question pertaining to the OP. If the TLM was never abrogated as Rome has finally admitted, wouldn’t the TLM have been the ‘ordinary form’ since Trent until the present day?
Click to expand...
Well, no. Pope Paul VI promulgated the revised Roman Missal in 1970. From that point until the present day, this was (and is) the form that was said in virtually every Roman Rite Catholic Church in communion with the Holy Father. It was (and is) the form used by the Pope himself, and all of the Bishops. The fact that the Pope never said, “You can’t ever say the Tridentine Mass again” does not mean that it remained the ordinary form. Nor does it mean that the SSPX and other such groups are off the hook, since they went beyond simply preferring the Tridentine Rite and denied all of the teachings of a valid ecunemical council, and refused to accept the legitimacy of a rite that was validly promulgated by the Holy Father.
 
Mickey_Jackson said:
Nor does it mean that the SSPX and other such groups are off the hook, since they went beyond simply preferring the Tridentine Rite and denied all of the teachings of a valid ecunemical council,
Click to expand...
There were no ‘teachings’ of Vatican II. That’s the main point! There were no dogmatic definitions. There was no change in the Faith. How could the SSPX deny teachings that hadn’t changed?
and refused to accept the legitimacy of a rite that was validly promulgated by the Holy Father.
Click to expand...
Who refused to accept the legitimacy of the NO? Certainly not the SSPX since they admit the OF is a valid form of Mass. However, since the EF was never abrogated, how could there be a requirement for the SSPX, or any priest for that matter, to celebrate the new Mass.
 
I’d be interested in knowing how Greek Orthodox parishes made the determination about what parts of the DL could be in the Vernacular and which should remain in Greek.

**It varies from parish to parish. I was quite surprised to hear that large part of Sunday Matins was chanted IN ENGLISH at Holy Trinity Archdiocesan Cathedral in NYC.

One large church I know of has the Sunday Divine Liturgy mostly in Greek, but a midweek Divine Liturgy mostly in English.

BTW–“Greek Orthodox” properly means the Greek Archdiocese or Church of Greece.**
 
There were no ‘teachings’ of Vatican II. That’s the main point! There were no dogmatic definitions. There was no change in the Faith.

**No Ecumenical Council has ever changed the Faith.

Can you name one that did?**
 
I like the idea of a hybrid form. I don’t think we should revert back to Latin on a full time basis, but I do think that church should have a few Latin masses a year. I honestly think they made a bad decision in converting mass to venecular language after Vatican II. I also think some idea that have come from Vatican II just aren’t to the benefit of the Church. I personally like learning about the history of the church and the Latin Mass does fascinate me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top