Status of Reform of the Reform?

[Homerun]

Obviously, there is a growing movement to restore the pre-VII liturgy for use alongside the Novus Ordo Mass. The biggest step to reach this goal came when the pope gave permission to individual priests to say the Latin Mass without the approval of a bishop.

The question is: how far have we come since then? Do you see the Latin Mass returning on a widespread, frequent basis? Has progress been made? What do you think will become of the Chuch in the US liturgically over the next 5-10 years?

 

[malphono]

I’m a little confused. What does this have to do with the “reform of the reform?” That designation applies to reforming the OF, not to the expansion of the EF.

 

[laszlo]

My understanding is that the ‘reform of the reform’ advocated by Pope Benedict means some changes in the New rite Mass…

The reform of the ICEL translation already ordered to be introduced in Advent of 2011. The expected other steps are

• the removal of at least some options in the Ordo of the Mass,
• and the strict regulation about the place of the tabernacle, whic hopefully will be an altar, where the priest facing East faces the tabernacle too.

 

[malphono]

My understanding is that the ‘reform of the reform’ advocated by Pope Benedict means some changes in the New rite Mass…

The reform of the ICEL translation already ordered to be introduced in Advent of 2011.

This is really nothing to do with the “reform of the reform” as such. It is merely a very-delayed correction of some gross errors in translation (well it was really “dynamic equivalence” rather “translation” in the first place, but never mind that) that were put into place 40 years ago.

The expected other steps are

• the removal of at least some options in the Ordo of the Mass,

That would indeed be most welcome: those so-called “options” have been, IMHO, a major problem from the beginning of the Novus Ordo. However, I’m not convinced that curtailing same is actually “on the table” so-to-speak.

• and the strict regulation about the place of the tabernacle, whic hopefully will be an altar, where the priest facing East faces the tabernacle too.

If what you mean is an effort to restore ad orientem, yes, that would be an absolutely welcome step. As I’ve said before, it’s probably the single most important hurdle. However, the position of the tabernacle is not, and never has been, mandated as such. Further, the position of the tabernacle has no bearing on ad orientem celebration. It never has.

One of the many other things that I believe needs to be addressed is the Novus Ordo offertory. Whether that is even “on the table” either at this I don’t know.

 

[laszlo]

If what you mean is an effort to restore ad orientem, yes, that would be an absolutely welcome step. As I’ve said before, it’s probably the single most important hurdle. However, the position of the tabernacle is not, and never has been, mandated as such. Further, the position of the tabernacle has no bearing on ad orientem celebration. It never has.

One of the many other things that I believe needs to be addressed is the Novus Ordo offertory. Whether that is even “on the table” either at this I don’t know.

In teh Church (Colo) the priest faces the Tabernacle and South. I see nothing wrong with that the Church was built in 1906 in that way. Above that the emphasis is the tabernacle being in the center, it could be one side of a freestanding altar or in between the freestanding altar and the people too.

As for the offertory I learned in the fifties, before the council was even announced the problems with the offertory. Read the text The priest offers a food sacrifice (hanc immaculatam hostiam, calicem salutaris) acknoledges his sins, (ego indignus famoulus tuus) and finishing the insufficient sacrifice claims himself innocent (Ego autem in innocéntia mea ingréssus sum).

This is an inadequate sacrifice before the real sacrifice. The interpretation referring to Jesus’ sacrifice is secondary and ambivalent. I believe this is the reason why the Council of Trent defined only the Canon of the Mass being without error. The real Offertory is the ‘Unde et memores’ after the consecration. (see e.g. Catholic Encyclopedia)

 

[ProVobis]

As for the offertory I learned in the fifties, before the council was even announced the problems with the offertory. Read the text The priest offers a food sacrifice (hanc immaculatam hostiam, calicem salutaris) acknoledges his sins, (ego indignus famoulus tuus) and finishing the insufficient sacrifice claims himself innocent (Ego autem in innocéntia mea ingréssus sum).

We’ve been through this already.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7150635&highlight=trinchard#post7150635

 

[malphono]

In teh Church (Colo) the priest faces the Tabernacle and South. I see nothing wrong with that the Church was built in 1906 in that way. Above that the emphasis is the tabernacle being in the center, it could be one side of a freestanding altar or in between the freestanding altar and the people too.

Optimally the church building should face geographic East, but what with land parcels, zoning laws, neighboring structures, etc, that is often not possible. It could face NNW and “liturgical East” is still proper. Whether or not there is a free-standing altar (which I generally prefer for liturgical reasons) makes no difference. And, the position of the tabernacle is accidental in any church; irrespective of the building’s geographic position, it has absolutely nothing to do with ad orientem celebration either. Think, for a moment, of small chapels and oratories where the Sacrament is not (and has never been) reserved. Or multi-use buildings which include a chapel facing whatever point on the compass within their walls. Or those cathedrals and basilicas where there has traditionally been a Reservation Chapel totally removed from the High Altar.

As for the offertory I learned in the fifties, before the council was even announced the problems with the offertory. Read the text The priest offers a food sacrifice …

This is an inadequate sacrifice before the real sacrifice.

As [post=7266772]ProVobis[/post] says, we’ve been through this already. I didn’t buy into it then, and I do not buy into it now.

 

[laszlo]

We’ve been through this already.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7150635&highlight=trinchard#post7150635

The answer than was that hostia means victim, what the speaker interpreted as animal, thus referring only and exclusivelly to the Lamb, Jesus Christ.

This supposition is not true. Hostia means the object of the sacrifice, which could be animal, food or fragrance, in this case the hanc hostiam (this host) the host in the context clearly means the bread, the object of a food sacrifice. Later this will be the body of our Lord given up for us, but on that moment, in this preliminary sacrifice remembering the insufficient sacrifices of the Old Testament, it is what the text says: bread, the object of a food sacrifice. Still the priest in the Lavabo explicitly claims that it made him innocent from sinner.

Until the priest said in a dead language in soto voice, it did not established real problem, priest knew well that the words about the innocence are not true.

However when St Pius X encouraged people to read, and understand the words of the mass, and people rightly believe that honest sentences mean what they say primarily, the problem arisen: why the priest supposes that he, and his food sacrifice remembering the Old Testament, is sufficient instrument to save himself?

The Church resolved this contradiction by omitting the controversial words from the masses celebrated in vernacular. Why do you think, against the Magisterium, that it had to be reversed?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The question is: how far have we come since then? Do you see the Latin Mass returning on a widespread, frequent basis? Has progress been made? What do you think will become of the Chuch in the US liturgically over the next 5-10 years?

In light of our recent moderatorial admonition, I’ll try to comment on the actual topic of the thread.

The immediate aftermath of Summorum Pontificum did indeed see a large increase in the number of Masses offered in the extraordinary form (at least in the US and Europe). I suspect that instead of completely new interest this spike in offerings represented the entry into the EF “market” of priests who had been interested before but deterred or postively blocked from celebrating that form by their bishops. Still, keeping everything in perspective, even a doubling of what had been out there prior to the motu proprio leaves the number of EF Masses at something like 1% or less of all Roman Rite Masses offered on a given Sunday.

While that larger perspective can make the EF seem somewhat insignificant, I nonetheless believe that the upcoming demographic shift in priest personnel will make the EF a far more frequent affair in the life of the Church than it currently is, albeit most likely on an occasional affair (say, 1 Mass on the first Sunday of the month) rather than weekly and/or exclusive basis. Polling consistently shows Catholics quite open to the EF (with half or more, IIRC, saying they would be open to attending on at least the occasional basis proposed above), so what the Church is really waiting for is the priests willing to offer that to the faithful. The present, rapidly aging establishment is by and large not open to this possibility. But the younger men in formation or recently ordained most certainly are. 5-10 years from now we will still only have seen a moderate increase in EF celebrations and attendance. 50 years from now it will be even larger; by then it will be a significant part of the Church’s weekly life.