The "reform of the reform" and EF-OF cross-enrichment

[ConstantineTG]

If you go to the Anglo Catholic website there are a few from Canada who are coming in. One woman Deborah is very invovled. She would know where their are parishes interested in Canada.

God Bless

Bernadette

Thanks! As I previously mentioned, our local TAC parish is coming in. Just have to wait for the official word.

 

[Pregustator]

BernadetteM:

I can’t tell you how many conversations I have had with fellow Catholics, lamenting some of the bad results of the liturgical reform, and expressing a wish that we had a vernacularized liturgy at which congregational participation was standard, but with all the “high church” solemnity of the old form of Mass. And then I chanced upon information about the phenomenon of the “Anglican Use” liturgy during the Pope’s visit to the UK. I saw images and watched a video and said to myself, “this is what should have happened to the Mass after Vatican II!”

Alas, there is no Anglican Use Mass anywhere near where I live. I hope this phenomenon catches on and expands, because far beyond an appeal to former high church Anglicans who have converted to Roman Catholicism, this form of liturgy easily appeals to other Roman Catholics of a more traditional frame of mind who appreciate “high” liturgy, but who aren’t, at the same time, keen on the idea of having to travel back to the 1950s every Sunday to attend a Tridentine Mass in Latin.

At any rate, I think the Anglican Use service really demonstrates beautifully how the best attributes of the “EF” and the “OF” can harmonize to produce something that is both contemporary and traditional at once.

It seems to me that the current thrust to “reform the reform” is, in fact, to adorn the “OF” with a greater degree of solemnity than has been the norm since 1970, while at the same time preserving things like congregational responses and participation, and the predominant use of the vernacular language (perhaps with parts in Latin). If the Church manages to arrive at this, in a universal sense, over time, I think we’ll wind up with an ordinary form of Mass that is very similar to the Anglican Use Mass.

And should that “reform of the reform” come to pass, it may turn out to be the death knell for the celebration of the Tridentine, or “extraordinary” form of Mass, altogether. Let’s face it, if it does, indeed, come to pass that Sunday Mass is once again typified by solemnity, elegant vestments and other externals, the use of incense, the singing, chanting, or playing of worthy Catholic liturgical music (sacred chant & polyphony, baroque, classical, &c), and the use of Latin (if not exclusively), what will be the point of the “extraordinary form” any longer? In that environment–in that re-Catholicized or re-traditionalized liturgical and ecclesiastical culture–the Tridentine Mass will one day seem to everyone quite redundant, just an oddly outdated form of the Mass that is normally celebrated.

That will be, I hope, one of the happy results of the “reform of the liturgical reform”: that the “ordinary” expression of the Roman Catholic Mass will become, universally, so traditionalized that there will cease to be a need for an “ordinary” and an “extraordinary” form of Mass. That there will be one catholic form of the Latin Rite that all Roman Catholics can relate to and embrace.

It’s a tall order, of course, but I am hopeful.

 

[ProVobis]

This, of course, presumes we have a translatable Anglican Use-style for all vernaculars.

No problem.

 

[malphono]

I chanced upon information about the phenomenon of the “Anglican Use” liturgy during the Pope’s visit to the UK. I saw images and watched a video and said to myself, “this is what should have happened to the Mass after Vatican II!”

… I hope this phenomenon catches on and expands, because far beyond an appeal to former high church Anglicans who have converted to Roman Catholicism, this form of liturgy easily appeals to other Roman Catholics of a more traditional frame of mind who appreciate “high” liturgy, but who aren’t, at the same time, keen on the idea of having to travel back to the 1950s every Sunday to attend a Tridentine Mass in Latin.

But of course the “spirit of Vatican II run amok” had distinctly other ideas.

As an aside here, I have to say that I have never “traveled back to the 1950s” at the EF. Yes, I know full well that there are those who insist on living in the 1950s, but (a) I am not one of them, and (b) I assist at the EF in spite of them.

At any rate, I think the Anglican Use service really demonstrates beautifully how the best attributes of the “EF” and the “OF” can harmonize to produce something that is both contemporary and traditional at once.

It seems to me that the current thrust to “reform the reform” is, in fact, to adorn the “OF” with a greater degree of solemnity than has been the norm since 1970, while at the same time preserving things like congregational responses and participation, and the predominant use of the vernacular language (perhaps with parts in Latin). If the Church manages to arrive at this, in a universal sense, over time, I think we’ll wind up with an ordinary form of Mass that is very similar to the Anglican Use Mass.

One problem I have with the Anglican Use its reliance on the BCP. I’ve nothing against the BCP per se, but personally I find the texts and the order of service a bit too Cranmer-esque for my taste. Another problem I have with it is its incorporation of the Novus Ordo.

I frankly don’t see even Rite I (Rite II doesn’t rate a comment) as being particularly “contemporary.” It is, after all, based in large part on the BCP of 1928 and I hardly consider that “contemporary.” Nor, for that matter, do I see that it contains much in the way of any attributes of the EF.

What the Anglican Use does show, however, is exemplary attention to the externals of “high liturgy” and I admit that is quite commendable. It is something that has been sorely lacking in the so-called “norm” of the Novus Ordo. The current “reform of the reform” OF (as rarely done as it is) has tried to do the same thing but without the BCP influence. Its rarity is, I think, testament that it hasn’t succeeded in negating that “spirit of Vatican II run amok” mindset.

And should that “reform of the reform” come to pass, it may turn out to be the death knell for the celebration of the Tridentine, or “extraordinary” form of Mass, altogether.

Unless there is a true organic development, no, it won’t. But it could spell the death knell for the Novus Ordo.

Let’s face it, if it does, indeed, come to pass that Sunday Mass is once again typified by solemnity, elegant vestments and other externals, the use of incense, the singing, chanting, or playing of worthy Catholic liturgical music (sacred chant & polyphony, baroque, classical, &c), and the use of Latin (if not exclusively), what will be the point of the “extraordinary form” any longer? In that environment–in that re-Catholicized or re-traditionalized liturgical and ecclesiastical culture–the Tridentine Mass will one day seem to everyone quite redundant, just an oddly outdated form of the Mass that is normally celebrated.

That’s one part of it, yes, but it’s not the entire thing. It only concerns the externals. And even there , the part about “liturgical language vs vernacular” is somewhat lacking. That item is not going away anytime soon.

That will be, I hope, one of the happy results of the “reform of the liturgical reform”: that the “ordinary” expression of the Roman Catholic Mass will become, universally, so traditionalized that there will cease to be a need for an “ordinary” and an “extraordinary” form of Mass. That there will be one catholic form of the Latin Rite that all Roman Catholics can relate to and embrace.

This I can sort of agree with in principle. A happy medium could be achieved but for my taste, however, there has to be a lot more of the EF and a lot less of the Novus Ordo.

 

[BernadetteM]

The Holy Father is the one who sees what you call the Crammer prayers as part of the Anglican Patrimony and Rome has already made sure that they are in line with Catholic belief.

Rome is the one who chose what the Anglican Use liturgy would be and they are the ones who took some from the BCP, which in fact is the 1979 version and are mostly short responses that are if not the same similar to the OF Mass.

The original AU priests wanted the liturgy to be in line with the Missal, which had the prayers at the foot of the altar and the Last Gospel. There is no point in having an AU liturgy if it is the same as the TLM/EF or OF/NO.

Pope Benedict said he is looking forward to the “treasures” the Anglicans will be bringing into the Church. I will stick with the Pope as he is the head of the Church.

No one has to attend an AU Mass, they have many of choices, but there are many Catholics who attend AU parishes.

Even with the Reform of the Reform, except for the language changes, unless the rubics are also changed the same innovations will continue.

It is very apparent that Catholics disagree on which liturgy they prefer, but it will never be possible to make everyone happy.

As they say “Rome has spoken” and that is the final word on what ever liturgy the AU parishes will have in the future and the one they have now.

I would say that the AU priests seem more obedient to the Church than many of the liberal priests. They might not like some parts of the AU liturgy, but they accepted what was given to them and from the ones I know of they are very orthodox and very pastoral.

I attend a traditional parish by choice, but it doesn’t bother me if others choose one which does there own thing. I have been in parishes where the priest just sits and lets the women do everything, except for some parts of the Mass and the Canon. Where people are asked to stand up and introduce themselves and everyone claps, where you can’t pray before Mass because everyone is talking, even the priest is going around from pew to pew conversing in a loud voice. This is not my personal choice, but like I stated if some prefer this then I have no problem with it.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[ProVobis]

Bernadette, I have this question: Will the Anglican Use text be synchronized with the new English OF? I notice the Creed and the words of Consecration are basically the original ICEL translations.

 

[malphono]

The Holy Father is the one who sees what you call the Crammer prayers as part of the Anglican Patrimony and Rome has already made sure that they are in line with Catholic belief. …

I would say that the AU priests seem more obedient to the Church than many of the liberal priests. They might not like some parts of the AU liturgy, but they accepted what was given to them and from the ones I know of they are very orthodox and very pastoral.

Please don’t take what I said the wrong way. I actually have great respect for the AU. It is designed for a particular purpose, and it meets that purpose admirably. There’s no question about that. And even though I’m not personally fond of the Cranmer-style prayers, the folks in the AU seem to be, and that’s fine. If there was an AU in my area, I would certainly attend, at least from time-to-time.

What I intended to say was simply that I don’t feel that the AU is the answer to the “reform of the reform” and the EF-OF cross-enrichment.

 

[Pregustator]

As an aside here, I have to say that I have never “traveled back to the 1950s” at the EF. Yes, I know full well that there are those who insist on living in the 1950s, but (a) I am not one of them, and (b) I assist at the EF in spite of them.

Well, what I suppose I mean by that is to point out that the typical “EF” is celebrated as if that form of Mass is locked in a time warp, and could not have developed in any way. And so whenever I have attended the Tridentine Mass, it has, to me, always felt somewhat like a time machine: the celebrants almost always wear fiddleback chasubles, they almost always wear albs with sheer or lace skirts, they almost always wear the biretta.

The music is always outdated…and repetetive: “Jesus, My Lord, My God, My All”, “Hail, Queen of the Holy Rosary”, “Bring Flowers of the Rarest”, “Hail, Holy Queen”, “To Jesus’ Heart All Burning”, and “Holy God We Praise Thy Name” are sung ad nauseam. For as much as we lament the music typically used at “OF” Masses, the music typically heard at today’s “EF” Mass is sometimes no better…it’s just older.

Finally, this “time warp” effect is supported, alot of the time, by the appearance of those in attendance. Many (not all) women in attendance at an “EF” Mass are often seen in outdated fashions, wearing mantillas and chapel caps or hats. They’re often heard to “shush” children, and seen to make the sign of the cross when entering their pew, to genuflect with the priest (and make a hurried sign of the cross as they do), to click their rosary beads endlessly, and to otherwise remind one of Leave it to Beaver era Catholicism.

Now, this may not be everyone’s experience of the typical environment surrounding the celebration of the Tridentine Mass, but it has been mine. I do not attend the Tridentine Mass in my diocese (it is offered at two different sites), and one of the big reasons I do not is the environment, which I find to have that “time warp” quality about it. Also…I am sorry, it has to be said…the Tridentine Mass tends to be a lightening rod for kooks. Lots of strange individuals persuaded of bizarre notions attend Tridentine Masses, and they don’t keep their crazy to themselves, either. They like to get in your face with it.

If you (malphono) have another experience to report: the Tridentine Mass in a normal, contemporary parish environment, that’s great. You’re fortunate.

One problem I have with the Anglican Use its reliance on the BCP. I’ve nothing against the BCP per se, but personally I find the texts and the order of service a bit too Cranmer-esque for my taste. Another problem I have with it is its incorporation of the Novus Ordo.

I frankly don’t see even Rite I (Rite II doesn’t rate a comment) as being particularly “contemporary.” It is, after all, based in large part on the BCP of 1928 and I hardly consider that “contemporary.” Nor, for that matter, do I see that it contains much in the way of any attributes of the EF.

What the Anglican Use does show, however, is exemplary attention to the externals of “high liturgy” and I admit that is quite commendable. It is something that has been sorely lacking in the so-called “norm” of the Novus Ordo. The current “reform of the reform” OF (as rarely done as it is) has tried to do the same thing but without the BCP influence. Its rarity is, I think, testament that it hasn’t succeeded in negating that “spirit of Vatican II run amok” mindset.

Well, right, the Book of Divine Worship, so heavily-based upon the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, would not be the text for universal use throught the Catholic world. Although I, Anglophile that I am, would have no problem with it, personally, it would not have universal appeal, nor would it be appropriate.

But the “high church” pomp and circumstance is what I would like the “ordinary form” to take from the Anglican Use Mass…and, indeed, from the Tridentine Mass.

Unless there is a true organic development, no, it won’t. But it could spell the death knell for the Novus Ordo.

Well, this is what the “Novus Ordo” would become. It wouldn’t die, at all; it would just be rehabilitated. As I see matters, that rehabilitation of the “ordinary form” would tend to render the Tridentine Mass somewhat redundant.

 

[laszlo]

In my opinion from the average New Mass:

• the altars had to be turned toward the liturgical east, the tabernacle had to be brought back to the altar, and the priest celembrate the Mass toward the tabernacle, as proof that Jesus Christ is the Center
• the hymnal books should be carefully revised, as much as possible bringing back the gregorian chant (English or Latin)
• the faithful should get the opportunity to receive the Eucharist kneeling and to tongue
• and most importantly the written rubrics of the GIRM should be kept without any innovative additions

 

[VetA]

The following is from another current thread, and is what spurred me to start this one.

The idea of “cross-enrichment” between the EF and OF is implicit in Summorum Pontificum (and is a bit more explicit in the accompanying letter to the bishops), and it leads me to ask opinions on (a) how a real (meaning widespread or “universal”) “reform of the reform” of the OF might be achieved, and (b) how the EF and OF and can enrich each other. It seems to me that the two things go hand-in-hand.

At this point, I think it’s necessary to say that the intent of this thread is not to get into another of the endless “mine is better than yours” discussions. Nor is it the intent that it be yet one more thread on “abuses” in either the OF or the EF, or a discussion of the SSPX, or a discussion of “reverence” (those who read my posts already know that I consider the issue of “reverence” to be relative). The matter of liturgical language-vs-vernacular is implicit in the thread (the Council and the oft-cited Veterum Sapientiae are clear enough that the use of Latin in the Roman Church is to be retained), but again, it is not the intent that the thread devolve into the usual “mine is better than yours” rhetoric.

As long as everyone plays nicely, this could be thought provoking and fun at the same time. I was going to post a few ideas as teasers, but decided to leave it as a blank slate. Anyone interested in coming up to the board?

first off i believe that the church should go back to the TLM

, but the way i think the NO could enhance the TLM is certainly the introduction of a rotating schedual of readings, also i believe that the second reading and responsorial psalm should be added. i say keep the ad orintam (sorry for the misspelling) for at least the Mass of the Faithful. also i would say keep it in Latin except for the psalms, readings and possibly the credo.

as for the TLM enhancing the NO, i would say add a last Gospel and add the prayers at the foot of the altar and the reintroduction of ad orintiam, Latin for the liturgy of the Eucharist. abolition of the ‘low’ altars the reintroduction of kneeling to receive the Eucharist the reintroduction of ONLY receiving on the tongue. no altar girls. more incense. possibly the introduction of a High Mass and a Low Mass.

 

[malphono]

Well, what I suppose I mean by that is to point out that the typical “EF” is celebrated as if that form of Mass is locked in a time warp, and could not have developed in any way. And so whenever I have attended the Tridentine Mass, it has, to me, always felt somewhat like a time machine:

So much the shame, but it might have something to do with your admitted distaste for the SSPX.

the celebrants almost always wear fiddleback chasubles, they almost always wear albs with sheer or lace skirts, they almost always wear the biretta.

I never much cared for fiddlebacks, but they’re a sight better than the felt and polyester things that became fashionable in the post-conciliar era, and are still alive and well today. And BTW, I know lots of clergy who wear lace albs and birettas for the OF.

The music is always outdated…and repetetive: “Jesus, My Lord, My God, My All”, “Hail, Queen of the Holy Rosary”, “Bring Flowers of the Rarest”, “Hail, Holy Queen”, “To Jesus’ Heart All Burning”, and “Holy God We Praise Thy Name” are sung ad nauseam. For as much as we lament the music typically used at “OF” Masses, the music typically heard at today’s “EF” Mass is sometimes no better…it’s just older.

Those hymns may be a little long in the tooth, but are still a sight better than the sappy touchy-feely stuff one often hears at the typical OF.

Finally, this “time warp” effect is supported, alot of the time, by the appearance of those in attendance. Many (not all) women in attendance at an “EF” Mass are often seen in outdated fashions, wearing mantillas and chapel caps or hats. They’re often heard to “shush” children, and seen to make the sign of the cross when entering their pew, to genuflect with the priest (and make a hurried sign of the cross as they do), to click their rosary beads endlessly, and to otherwise remind one of Leave it to Beaver era Catholicism.

Now, this may not be everyone’s experience of the typical environment surrounding the celebration of the Tridentine Mass, but it has been mine. I do not attend the Tridentine Mass in my diocese (it is offered at two different sites), and one of the big reasons I do not is the environment, which I find to have that “time warp” quality about it. Also…I am sorry, it has to be said…the Tridentine Mass tends to be a lightening rod for kooks. Lots of strange individuals persuaded of bizarre notions attend Tridentine Masses, and they don’t keep their crazy to themselves, either. They like to get in your face with it.

Yes, I know. and that’s exactly why I said I assist at the EF in spite of those people.

If you (malphono) have another experience to report: the Tridentine Mass in a normal, contemporary parish environment, that’s great. You’re fortunate.

Despite the presence (physical, vocal, and psychological) of the ultra-right-wing-fringe, there are, at the same time, people at the EF who are actually normal.

Well, right, the Book of Divine Worship, so heavily-based upon the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, would not be the text for universal use throught the Catholic world. Although I, Anglophile that I am, would have no problem with it, personally, it would not have universal appeal, nor would it be appropriate.

But the “high church” pomp and circumstance is what I would like the “ordinary form” to take from the Anglican Use Mass…and, indeed, from the Tridentine Mass.

Yes, that’s what I was saying.

Well, this is what the “Novus Ordo” would become. It wouldn’t die, at all; it would just be rehabilitated. As I see matters, that rehabilitation of the “ordinary form” would tend to render the Tridentine Mass somewhat redundant.

And that is quite antithetical to what I was saying. To “rehabilitate” the Novus Ordo really means to go back to the EF and allow for some organic development (which, of course, was what never happened the first time around). As I see it, it’s the Novus Ordo that would be rendered somewhat redundant.

 

[BernadetteM]

Bernadette, I have this question: Will the Anglican Use text be synchronized with the new English OF? I notice the Creed and the words of Consecration are basically the original ICEL translations.

I don’t have that answer, no one does at this point, but I assume it will stay the same as it is now, which is very close to the new English OF. Except hopefully it will stay truer to the Missal than the BCP or OF liturgies.

Creed: I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men and our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the VIrgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontious Pilate; he suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost the Lord, and Giver of LIfe, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spake by the Prophets. And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church; I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; I look for the Resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen

Canon/Consecration:

We beseech thee then, O Lord, graciously to accept this oblation from us thy servants, and from thy whole family; order thou our days in thy peace, and bid us to be delivered from eternal damnation and to be numbered in the fold of thine elect.

Vouchsafe, O God we beseech thee, in all things to make this oblation blessed, approved, and accepted, a perfect and worthy offering; that it may become for us the Body and Blood of they dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Charist.

Who the day before he suffered, took bread into his holy and venerable hands, and with eyes lifted up to heaven unto thee, God, his Almighty Father, giving thanks to thee, he blessed, broke, and gave it to his disciiples, saying:

Take this all of you and eat it: This is my body which will be given up for you.

The same is said when the Blood is consecrated.

Another prayer is: Wherefore, O Lord we thy servants, and the holy people also, remembering the blessed passion of the same Christ thy Son our Lord, as also his Resurrection from the dead and his glorious ascension into heaven; do offer unto thine excellent majesty of thine own gifts and bounty, the pure victim, the holy victim, the immaculate victim, the holy Bread of eternal life, and the Chalice of everlasting salvation.

The above Canon is from the Sarum Use/Gregorian Use as far as I see when comparing them.

You can find the whole AU liturgy on line under Our Lady of the Atonement Church in San Antonio Texas.

I hope that Rome let them use one of the Missals with the additional Canon used above.

God Bless

Bernadette

 

[ProVobis]

The music is always outdated…and repetetive: “Jesus, My Lord, My God, My All”, “Hail, Queen of the Holy Rosary”, “Bring Flowers of the Rarest”, “Hail, Holy Queen”, “To Jesus’ Heart All Burning”, and “Holy God We Praise Thy Name” are sung ad nauseam. For as much as we lament the music typically used at “OF” Masses, the music typically heard at today’s “EF” Mass is sometimes no better…it’s just older.

A little clarification is in order here. Only Latin music is supposed to be sung during the EF. Maybe as a communion or recessional hymn these or any other “OF” hymns are sung.

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t have that answer, no one does at this point, but I assume it will stay the same as it is now, which is very close to the new English OF. Except hopefully it will stay truer to the Missal than the BCP or OF liturgies.

Thanks for this but I noticed you left out the “for all” in the Consecration. I imagine they would want that changed.

Also the Church seems to have a problem with the translation of “consubstantialem (Patri)” in the liturgy, not a light matter. In the new translation they are basically latinizing it as “consubstantial.”

con (with, together)
+sub (under)
+stantis, past participle of “stare”

 

[Pregustator]

A little clarification is in order here. Only Latin music is supposed to be sung during the EF. Maybe as a communion or recessional hymn these or any other “OF” hymns are sung.

Not at Low Mass. At Low Mass vernacular hyms are permitted and have tended to be the norm, from my experience. My problem is that, at your typical “EF” celebration, the choir seems to have a repertory of about six hymns, all from great-grandma’s time, few of them any good. Again, the whole “time warp” thing.

 

[ProVobis]

The music is always outdated…and repetetive: “Jesus, My Lord, My God, My All”, “Hail, Queen of the Holy Rosary”, “Bring Flowers of the Rarest”, “Hail, Holy Queen”, “To Jesus’ Heart All Burning”, and “Holy God We Praise Thy Name” are sung ad nauseam. For as much as we lament the music typically used at “OF” Masses, the music typically heard at today’s “EF” Mass is sometimes no better…it’s just older.

A little clarification is in order here. Only Latin music is supposed to be sung during the EF, at least in the High Mass*. Maybe as a communion or recessional hymn these or any other “OF” hymns are sung.

*I intended to make this correction before but got sidetracked. I haven’t heard a Low Mass in over a year.

 

[malphono]

Thanks for this but I noticed you left out the “for all” in the Consecration. I imagine they would want that changed.

Also the Church seems to have a problem with the translation of “consubstantialem Patri” in the liturgy, not a light matter. In the new translation they are basically leaving the Latin as is.

In point of fact, though, “consubstantial” and “of one substance” have exactly the same meaning in English. Of course what does not have the same meaning is the current ICEL gem. The phrase “of one substance” is what was used in 1965 (until the ICEL did its hatchet job) and frankly I would have been just as happy (if not happier) had it been reprised.

 

[malphono]

My problem is that, at your typical “EF” celebration, the choir seems to have a repertory of about six hymns, all from great-grandma’s time, few of them any good. Again, the whole “time warp” thing.

Here I actually have to defend the practice. Time warp it may be, but what alternatives are there? The sappy OF hymnal stuff? That’d go over at the EF like a lead balloon. Even I would walk out.

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t have that answer, no one does at this point, but I assume it will stay the same as it is now, which is very close to the new English OF. Except hopefully it will stay truer to the Missal than the BCP or OF liturgies.

Thanks for this but I noticed you left out the “for all” in the Consecration. I imagine they would want that changed.

Also the Church seems to have a problem with the translation of “consubstantialem (Patri)” in the liturgy, not a light matter. In the new translation they are basically latinizing it as “consubstantial.”

con (with, together)
+sub (under)
+stantis, past participle of “stare,” to stand

“one in being” is wrong; “one in substance” seems to be too vague. Is “substance” really the best 2010 word that can be used here?

 

[ProVobis]

The music is always outdated…and repetetive: “Jesus, My Lord, My God, My All”, “Hail, Queen of the Holy Rosary”, “Bring Flowers of the Rarest”, “Hail, Holy Queen”, “To Jesus’ Heart All Burning”, and “Holy God We Praise Thy Name” are sung ad nauseam. For as much as we lament the music typically used at “OF” Masses, the music typically heard at today’s “EF” Mass is sometimes no better…it’s just older.

“Amazing Grace,” “O Mighty Fortress,” “Hail Redeemer” inter alia go back aways too.