P
ProVobis
Guest
We’ll know when there is an official name for it. Missa Mixtura maybe?
- Status
R
Rich_C
Guest
Most traditionalists I’ve spoken have a generally good impression of the Anglican Use, so you may be right.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
What happened to my hybrid version with parts taken from St. John Chrysostom’s Liturgy?We’ll know when there is an official name for it. Missa Mixtura maybe?
P
ProVobis
Guest
I haven’t read any negative reaction to it. Go for it.What happened to my hybrid version with parts taken from St. John Chrysostom’s Liturgy?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I better start working my way up the ecclesiastical ladder thenI haven’t read any negative reaction to it. Go for it.
J
jwinch2
Guest
I agree, particularly when the new rubrics and missal is finished for the Ordinariate. However, many Traditionalists do not like the AU at all as can be seen by the some of the experiences of the AU Priest mentioned in one of the links above. As noted, he had many problems.
J
jwinch2
Guest
Be careful what you wish for. That might a two way street!What happened to my hybrid version with parts taken from St. John Chrysostom’s Liturgy?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I don’t think there is anything in the OF that isn’t already in the Divine Liturgy. Maybe Old Testament readings? It was there in the past, according to history, but eventually fell off as the other readings got assigned to the other Liturgical services like Vespers and Matins.Be careful what you wish for. That might a two way street!
J
jwinch2
Guest
J
JReducation
Guest
That’s what was published in one the Trad periodicals. Nothing has been said by the Vatican. If the article is correct, there will no longer be two forms. The merger is planned to take place over a 10-year period and it’s to begin in 2013.
TrueLight has the actual link to the article. Maybe she’ll come around and post it.
It actually makes sense to me. Two forms of the same rite is a little cumbersome. It happened during the high Middle Ages and it became chaotic. There were many forms of the same Roman Rite.
As to the Anglican use mass, I highly doubt that it will be used for this purpose. The prelates of the Anglican Ordinariate are not happy with Traditionalists and would probably fight a merger with the Traditionalist movement and win. That would be like asking the Spaniards to blend the Mazarabic Rite with the Tridentine form to accommodate everyone. They would flip out.
There is a social reason for this, to be honest. Regretfully, a few Traditionalists have been very loud in expressing their disdain for anything that is not of their liking or that they consider to be less than traditional. The result is that they become the poster children for the Traditionalist Movement. Moderate Traditionalists never make the billboards. But the hardliners who post on blogs, write magazine articles, give speeches and preach hardline sermons do make it. As I always say, “Every family has its own problem children. Who wants to adopt someone else’s?” It only takes a few people to ruin it for the larger group.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
I have often contemplated what a hybrid Mass might look like. Reading the Church’s teaching and directions in regards to the liturgy (in the Catechism), I think a hybrid Mass should take opportunity to express the universality of the Rite.That’s what was published in one the Trad periodicals. Nothing has been said by the Vatican. If the article is correct, there will no longer be two forms. The merger is planned to take place over a 10-year period and it’s to begin in 2013.
TrueLight has the actual link to the article. Maybe she’ll come around and post it.
It actually makes sense to me. Two forms of the same rite is a little cumbersome. It happened during the high Middle Ages and it became chaotic. There were many forms of the same Roman Rite.
As to the Anglican use mass, I highly doubt that it will be used for this purpose. The prelates of the Anglican Ordinariate are not happy with Traditionalists and would probably fight a merger with the Traditionalist movement and win. That would be like asking the Spaniards to blend the Mazarabic Rite with the Tridentine form to accommodate everyone. They would flip out.
There is a social reason for this, to be honest. Regretfully, a few Traditionalists have been very loud in expressing their disdain for anything that is not of their liking or that they consider to be less than traditional. The result is that they become the poster children for the Traditionalist Movement. Moderate Traditionalists never make the billboards. But the hardliners who post on blogs, write magazine articles, give speeches and preach hardline sermons do make it. As I always say, “Every family has its own problem children. Who wants to adopt someone else’s?” It only takes a few people to ruin it for the larger group.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
My only real reservations about the OF is: what happens if I move? As it is, my ability to participate in the OF is absolutely bound to my language. It seems to me that the common responses of the faithful should be signalled in Latin and *responded to *in Latin, while keeping the remainder of the liturgy - especially that part that is instructional - in the vernacular. In this way a few Latin phrases become a passport to all Masses, so that at least the Catholic can take comfort in them wherever he or she may be.
Some people might argue that the most common and important response in the Mass is our “Amen,” which is universal and all Catholics know: I agree, however, the* singals *for that response may be completely unrecognizable because they are in the vernacular. Of course, most of the EP is accompanied by very universal and recognizable gestures on the priest’s part, but still even here those things that are always or nearly always said could be said in the Latin rather than the vernacular, because the people could easily memorise what they mean and, more importantly, signify.
As for vocal and angry traditionalists- patience and understanding always, IMO.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Br JR, somehow I don’t see the existing Forma Ordinaria as it stands going away with either this Pope or the next. So will that leave us with Missa Mixtura (I just made this up) and the Forma Ordinaria? But that will still leave us with two forms.
P
ProVobis
Guest
But even here there is controversy whether it should be pronounced AH-men or AY-men or AH-MEEN.
And don’t forget the Alleluia, although now we hear Halleluia is better from some.
Can’t win.
J
jwinch2
Guest
Out of curiosity, if you move to a country where your native language is not spoken, would you not expect to have to learn that language in order to function in society anyway? When I have been to Mass in Brasil while visiting my wife’s family, I did not expect to understand the Mass without taking time to learn it. If I were to move there, I would fully expect to have to learn Portuguese.
Peace,
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
Those differences hardly matter, though: what’s important is that people can recognize it and know what it means or, rather, signifies.
Bold added in edit.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I agree. Judging from the many posts on “amen” alone, there isn’t too much agreement on what it actually means, only that it’s used as an end, sometimes in agreement, to something spoken.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Why do you think it is? Although the current way of doing it is indeed cumbersome because the “OF crowd” and “EF crowd” seems to exist exclusively from one another. The Eastern Churches have maintained use of several forms or the Liturgy. In the Byzantine Rite we uniformly use the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom for most of the year, then 10 times a year we use the DL of St. Basil the Great. Some would even use the ancient Liturgy of St. James once or twice a year. The Coptics use 3 different Liturgies throughout their Liturgical cycle.
The difference there of course is there is uniformity on what to celebrate and when. If it is Lent then we use St. Basil’s Liturgy exclusively. No ifs, no buts.
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
More and more - especially English speaking people - move to other countries for long terms but the language difference is provided for, whether through translators or support personnel. Business trips are another example. Tourism another. Still other times the country or area is practically bilingual but, naturally, the preference is the native vernacular for Mass.
You’re right, though, it’s rare; notwithstanding, in each and any of those situations mentioned above, the Church’s desire for *full and active participation *of the laity in the liturgy is utterly erased/negated. At times like this I would probably hope an EF was being celebrated somewhere nearby.
P
ProVobis
Guest
But even within your parish you have one group which wants to attend the Ukrainian liturgy and another that will only attend the English liturgy? Didn’t you recently post an article of a parish where that’s becoming more and more of a problem?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
But that is the same Liturgy. The OF in Latin is still different than the EF. The argument between the OF and EF is far more than the language used. We can do a bilingual Liturgy switching between two languages, but you can’t switch between the OF and EF mid-Liturgy.
- Status