The OF and the EF in 50 years?

[sursumcorda]

+JMJ+

In 50 years will there still be two forms of the mass in the Latin Rite, if not which one will be the Lex orandi of tomorrow the TLM or the NO?

Personally I think there should only be one Form of the Holy Sacrafice of the Mass used by all and said universally among all Roman Catholics. But which one, the Traditional Latin Mass of Antiquity that has been said for centuries or the Novus Ordo promulgated in 1970?

In my openion the NO mass has some theological difficulties {even if it were to be celebrated Ad Orientem, in latin, with fiddlebacks and a Beretta cover head along with all the smells and bells of Catholic Liturgy} It would still be lacking. Will the NO mass be known as a phase in the life of the church, and remain a part of history as a failed attempt to reform the Liturgy?

And is it practical to think that the catholics of today, or 50 years from now will be willing to go back to the TLM without schism on the part of the lukewarm or Liberal, or even the pious faithful cathoics who prefer the NO mass? Is this even within the intention of the Holy Father?

 

[laszlo]

Three principles:

1./ There is only one Mass, the Mass of All Ages, which is gathering, learning, offering of the faithful; and sacrifice, meal, and mission of Jesus Christ. From those the Sacrifice is the most important, but not exclusive.

2./ As Pius XII declared in the Mediator Dei, the Lex Orandi follows and not dictates the Lex Credendi, the Lex Orandi is secondary.

3./ The Church always accepted multiple forms of the same Mass of All Ages, and very unlikely, that this will change in the near future. The Church was careful to approve only that forms which represent the eternal Faith (Lex Credendi). Naturally no representation can be perfect, we are partial imperfect human beings, it is only the temptation of the Satan, that we are like God, and know good and evil.

 

[Biedrik]

Why do you specify fiddlebacks? Gothic chausables and their ilk can be used in the EF, and can be very traditional.

 

[Joannm]

+JMJ+

In my openion the NO mass has some theological difficulties {even if it were to be celebrated Ad Orientem, in latin, with fiddlebacks and a Beretta cover head along with all the smells and bells of Catholic Liturgy} It would still be lacking. Will the NO mass be known as a phase in the life of the church, and remain a part of history as a failed attempt to reform the Liturgy?

And is it practical to think that the catholics of today, or 50 years from now will be willing to go back to the TLM without schism on the part of the lukewarm or Liberal, or even the pious faithful cathoics who prefer the NO mass? Is this even within the intention of the Holy Father?

I find your post very demeaning. First off those of us who prefer the Ordinary Form are not lukewarm or liberal. If you knew me you would probably find me to be quite conservative. I grew up with the Latin Mass and I pray the mass much better in my own language.

Secondly, the smells and bells, birettas, fiddlebacks and such really have nothing to do with with the theology of the Mass. Having studied liturgy for many many years, I see very little wrong with the theology of the Ordinary Form, and since it is the form the Pope celebrates publically, I don’t think he has a problem with it either.

If you prefer the Extraordinary Form I have no problem with that. It should be made available for those who prefer it. But, I do believe that putting down the OF is against forum rules and there are many, many of us who find that form of the Mass very uplifting and don’t appreciate being called liberal or lukewarm because we prefer the Mass the way it is celebrated today all over the world.

 

[nHisLightnLove]

Hi. Interesting thread. I’ve seen some articles with a Trad bent that state the NO mass is inferior and will go away for many of the reasons you’ve stated. The end of the argument typically asserts that the EF will be the only remaining mass.

So, your question asking if we’ll have a single mass in 50 years? I think it’s probable. I do not think that it’s going to be the EF as we see today.

Here’s a snip from an article that describes the younger generations thought on theology and liturgy.

---

Liturgy is experiencing something similar. A younger generation, which does not have the baggage of the experience of Vatican II, are questioning the fundamental assumption that the Tridentine liturgy was bunk and the liturgical reform was good. They do not seek to return to a pre-Trent, or pre-Vatican II position. They do seek to recover a celebration of the liturgy in which there need not be temporally chauvinistic dividing lines.

So what does this mean for the future of the liturgy? There will continue to be those who argue that there will be renewal in the Church only when we go back (or forward) to a certain liturgical text, or time period, or modus celebrandi. The temporal chauvinist is always tempted by time: to be progressive or conservative, to go backwards or to go forwards. But there are also those within the Church who argue that in the Church’s life, whether it be at the Altar in the liturgy or in Classroom in theology, there is no time, there is no progress or regress, backwards or forwards. There is only the extent to which our prayer and our work are in fidelity to Christ and the timeless Revelation of His Truth for us. Authentic Catholicism is not within the realm of how we get theology, liturgy, or the Church right. Authentic Catholicism is right because it is encounter with the fullness of Truth celebrated in Beauty.
chantcafe.com/2011/04/challenging-liturgical-status-quo.html

---

So basically, there are discussions that do support your question about one mass. The answer is likely not - it will either be the OF or EF. If I were to just make a hypothetical guess, my thoughts would be along the lines of this article.

 

[Joannm]

That artilce does make sense.

 

[nHisLightnLove]

I think so too Joannm. This discussion moves beyond the the EF or OF mass divide discussions. The discussion is based on a more objective view on what was happening in the theology world at the time and asserts that the dividing schools of thought were neither 100% right or wrong…

So, based on a more objective view in the realm of theology - the liturgy is looked at more objectively.

 

[otjm]

+JMJ+

In 50 years will there still be two forms of the mass in the Latin Rite, if not which one will be the Lex orandi of tomorrow the TLM or the NO?

There are already more than two forms of the Mass within the Roman rite, so you seem to not know your liturgical history.

Personally I think there should only be one Form of the Holy Sacrafice of the Mass used by all and said universally among all Roman Catholics. But which one, the Traditional Latin Mass of Antiquity that has been said for centuries or the Novus Ordo promulgated in 1970?

Again lack of knowledge of current liturgical practice.

In my openion the NO mass has some theological difficulties {even if it were to be celebrated Ad Orientem, in latin, with fiddlebacks and a Beretta cover head along with all the smells and bells of Catholic Liturgy} It would still be lacking. Will the NO mass be known as a phase in the life of the church, and remain a part of history as a failed attempt to reform the Liturgy?

And is it practical to think that the catholics of today, or 50 years from now will be willing to go back to the TLM without schism on the part of the lukewarm or Liberal, or even the pious faithful cathoics who prefer the NO mass? Is this even within the intention of the Holy Father?

The Pope gave us his intention when he wrote the letter accompanying SP. Sadly, most seem not to have read it, and most who have read it seem to have done so with blinders on; reading only that which they wished to read and ignoring that which they did not want to hear.

In his letter, B16 remarks of how both forms can benefit from the other. That is another way of saying that the EF is not going to remain locked in time and space as some “never to be touched” form.

There won’t need to be any schism; to begin with, those who initially formed their opinions concerning the OF, and who took it and experimented with it, got loose with the rubrics, and became innovative will have all died off. A man is usually not ordained until at least 26, and over the last two or more decades, vocations have been leaning farther to ordaining older men. So someone who was ordained 40 years ago is now 66; in two more decades they will be 86. Do the math.

What people who want the Ef to be the form of the Mass for the Church fail to realize, or they simply ignore, is that the EF is not going to be crammed down anyone’s throat when maybe 3% of the Masses said are in the EF. In short, it is not catching on like many who wanted it’s return to do, or like they predicted. As the Pope himself said in the letter, he anticipated it remaining the (not ordinary) form.

Where will we be in 50 years? There may be one primary rite; but it most likely will have elements of both the OF and the EF, and it most likely will be in the vernacular, with some use of Latin (and a minimal amount of Greek and even lesser amount of Aramaic). It will most likely have three Readings and a Psalm, and probably have several Canons for use. There probably will be a return to some of the prayers of the EF.

And my bets are the beretta will not make a come back, and fiddleback chausibles will most likely be in a minority. Deacons will be involved with the Mass, and continue to read the Gospel, and occasionally preach.

And if you ever attended a Mass at a Trappist Abbey, you would probably find the use of incense at the Sunday OF, as I do when I attend.

And by the way - you may think that the OF has some theological difficulties; they don’t seem to bother one of the most brilliant theologians of our time as he says it publicly. As in, B16.

 

[ProVobis]

In my openion the NO mass has some theological difficulties {even if it were to be celebrated Ad Orientem, in latin, with fiddlebacks and a Beretta cover head along with all the smells and bells of Catholic Liturgy} It would still be lacking. Will the NO mass be known as a phase in the life of the church, and remain a part of history as a failed attempt to reform the Liturgy?

But there are theological differences between any two translations of the same Mass. Why do you feel the Latin OF has problems?

And is it practical to think that the catholics of today, or 50 years from now will be willing to go back to the TLM without schism on the part of the lukewarm or Liberal, or even the pious faithful cathoics who prefer the NO mass?

Preferring the OF is one thing. Perferring a particular translation of it is entirely another. The first English translation will be history this November while the Polish (and a few other) translations will no doubt be kept around much longer than 50 years in my opinion.

 

[ConstantineTG]

+JMJ+

In 50 years will there still be two forms of the mass in the Latin Rite, if not which one will be the Lex orandi of tomorrow the TLM or the NO?

Personally I think there should only be one Form of the Holy Sacrafice of the Mass used by all and said universally among all Roman Catholics. But which one, the Traditional Latin Mass of Antiquity that has been said for centuries or the Novus Ordo promulgated in 1970?

In my openion the NO mass has some theological difficulties {even if it were to be celebrated Ad Orientem, in latin, with fiddlebacks and a Beretta cover head along with all the smells and bells of Catholic Liturgy} It would still be lacking. Will the NO mass be known as a phase in the life of the church, and remain a part of history as a failed attempt to reform the Liturgy?

And is it practical to think that the catholics of today, or 50 years from now will be willing to go back to the TLM without schism on the part of the lukewarm or Liberal, or even the pious faithful cathoics who prefer the NO mass? Is this even within the intention of the Holy Father?

I don’t see why the RC cannot have 2 forms of the Mass. The Byzantine Rite had done okay for 1500 years with two Divine Liturgies. Maybe in 50 years the RC will follow the Byzantine Rite and use the Pauline Mass exclusively for most of the year, and the Tridentine Mass exclusively for special feasts and Lent, like the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great.

 

[Evan]

I don’t see anywhere in the discussion the form of the mass called ‘Anglican Use’ In 50 years, there may be some influence on the mass of this form.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t see anywhere in the discussion the form of the mass called ‘Anglican Use’ In 50 years, there may be some influence on the mass of this form.

Possibly. Good point. We’ll see are the Anglican Use becomes more widely accepted, if more Roman Catholics would prefer that form and how much it can influence the OF and even the EF.

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t see anywhere in the discussion the form of the mass called ‘Anglican Use’ In 50 years, there may be some influence on the mass of this form.

Maybe, but I doubt if it will have any effect on the Polish or Spanish or Chinese Masses, which are a big part of the OF world.

 

[Lormar]

I will be long gone from this valley of tears in much less than fifty years, but I think that an OF Mass will be hard to find and well on the way out. If it is still around, it will bear little to no resemblance to the OF Mass of 2011, so changed it will be. There will probably be an EF in every parish by then.

 

[Warrenton]

+JMJ+

In 50 years will there still be two forms of the mass in the Latin Rite, if not which one will be the Lex orandi of tomorrow the TLM or the NO?

I think there will be two general forms at least.

There may be others, as various other Churches join ours.

I do not see that this is a problem. The vast majority of Catholics get their religious education from some kind of preaching, be it from their parents, priests, nuns, or from reading scripture or religious books.

The form of the sacraments reinforce what we already know, in most cases. That is why we have to be formed in the faith before we receive the sacrament. Were it otherwise, we would be given communion, and then “the scales would fall from our eyes.”

I agree with you that in 50 years, there will be many, many more EF’s said. Indeed, I don’t think the term EF will survive that long! (Most here know that I am very pro EF).

But why do I think several quite different forms are good?

Because the sad fact of modern life is that most Catholics can only engage in public prayer at mass. Gone are most community festivals (because most communities are gone, or going). Gone are the opportunities to pray matins or vespers with other Catholics (in the US, most of us are in the car going to work at matins time, and in rush hour at vespers). You could scour the countryside from Maine to Texas and not come across a field where the workers resemble the famous picture of the Angelus, which although it was only painted about a century ago, is as vanished as Indians living in tepees.

So, what we have left is the mass, and it has to cover a lot of spiritual territory. For simple understanding and plain devotion, the OF in vernacular works. For something more mysterious, more reflective of the universality of our faith, the EF is better, but better still if it is not frightening, imposed - modern people are not used to that. So, I would argue, the EF “works” better for more people with the OF.

Until the look and feel of society changes, which will likely take more than 50 years, we will need both forms.

 

[Lormar]

Until the look and feel of society changes, which will likely take more than 50 years, we will need both forms.

Let’s put this in perspective.

1961

2011

Fifty Years. Anyone here that remembers the church and the world in 1961 would tell you both bear no resemblance to what we have today.

In other words, don’t underestimate how much can change in fifty years.