Traditionalizing our OF Mass

[benedictgal]

I don’t care what they look, act, and sound like during their so-called “masses.”

They advocate gay marriage and abortion, two heinous sins. They align themselves with organizations that teach fuzzy-wuzzy theology about the Lord Jesus Christ.

As far as I’m concerned, they’re wolves in the Lamb’s clothing and will suffer a greater punishment for holding out the form of religion but not the substance.

While there is some truth to what you wrote, we should not lump the entire Anglican/Episcopal ecclesial community into the same pot. There are some Anglicans and Episcopalians who want to cross over. Some have, including the now Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman. I think that we need to be fair in the way we express ourselves. Furthermore, the Holy Father has a different take on this particular issue:

The other matter I touched upon in February with the Bishops of England and Wales, when I asked you to be generous in implementing the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus. This should be seen as a prophetic gesture that can contribute positively to the developing relations between Anglicans and Catholics. It helps us to set our sights on the ultimate goal of all ecumenical activity: the restoration of full ecclesial communion in the context of which the mutual exchange of gifts from our respective spiritual patrimonies serves as an enrichment to us all. Let us continue to pray and work unceasingly in order to hasten the joyful day when that goal can be accomplished.

Actually, though, rather than go the an Episcopal ecclesial community, maybe the OP can go to an Anglican-Use parish which might prove to be enlightening.

The problem is not with the OF; it’s with the manner in which some parishes celebrate it. The OP, it appears to me, wants to return the OF to its sacred nature and its proper context.

 

[Luger]

Liberal can mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean.
To me, when applied to the Mass, it means stretching the rubrics as far from traditional practice as possible.

You were using “liberal” as a put down. That’s on you. To suggest that degree of solemnity equates to “traditionalism” is repugnant.

The OF (-]Novus Ordo/-]) CAN be offered in a solemn manner. Unfortunately it rarely is. Many, probably most, Catholics have never participated in a normative OF Sunday Mass with Latin, traditional chants, incense, and the Asperges.

Most of the EFs (even today) are quick and dirty Low Masses. You’re wrong to suggest there’s any difference even though the EF is celebrated in microscopic numbers compared to the OF.

 

[Luger]

As sacristan at my parish **I try to subtly make suggestions in favor of tradition and of solemnity **whenever I feel I have a good chance of a favorable response to an idea or a hint. I tread lightly, however, because pushing it just makes one seem like one of the “crazies”. It would, however, be nice not to have to walk on eggshells about traditional vestments, incense, lace, Latin, &c. We’re Catholics. When did we become so embarrassed about the external elements that identify us as such?

That’s fine just as long as you aren’t trying to equate solemnity with traditionalism.

I don’t have much luck with the resident clergy, so whenever we have visiting priests, I make a point of laying our their vestments in advance on the vesting table (can’t even do that for the residents), and, of course, I always select traditional-looking vestments. Once I even set out a fiddleback and the priest actually wore it! You could have knocked me over with a feather. He opted not to don the maniple, however. I’m not sure he knew what it was.

Why would you even do such a thing? To satisfy yourself? I can just imagine the celebrant sitting down with it on – did you set-up one of those small benches for him as well? Was it all crinkled when he stood up? There are some things from the past that are very pleasing – things that should be preserved. The fiddleback chasuble isn’t one of them. That was a very dark period in chasuble design. I am glad the Church reverted back to earlier, more aesthetically pleasing designs.

My parish council president and I are conspiring to get rid of the acolytes albs and to replace them with cassocks and surplices. Fingers crossed.

“Conspiring?” Really? Why exactly would you get rid of albs for cassocks/surplices?

There isn’t much I can do, but I do what I can, when the opportunity arises. There are usually little things one can do to dress a bland OF Mass up a bit, if your clergy are willing to yield to your suggestions. And you seem to have a cooperative priest on your hands. My pastor, on the other hand, is hopelessly lost in the 1970s and doesn’t want to be rescued.

So now your OF’s are “bland?” You’re able to make them spicey by having the celebrant wear a fiddleback or the severs cassocks/surplices?

If you want some inspiration and ideas on what the OF form of Mass would look like if it were properly gussied-up, pay a visit to your local Episcopal Church. Pick one reputed to be either “broad” to “high” (not “low”). That should give you a few things to consider. The Episcopalians, unlike the Catholics, aren’t ashamed to look, act, and sound Catholic.

Ummmmmm, no thanks. I think I’ll go to Mass or watch one on EWTN.

 

[Luger]

…If you want some inspiration and ideas on what the OF form of Mass would look like if it were properly gussied-up, pay a visit to your local Episcopal Church. Pick one reputed to be either “broad” to “high” (not “low”). That should give you a few things to consider. The Episcopalians, unlike the Catholics, aren’t ashamed to look, act, and sound Catholic.

I don’t care what they look, act, and sound like during their so-called “masses.”

They advocate gay marriage and abortion, two heinous sins. They align themselves with organizations that teach fuzzy-wuzzy theology about the Lord Jesus Christ.

As far as I’m concerned, they’re wolves in the Lamb’s clothing and will suffer a greater punishment for holding out the form of religion but not the substance.

You make a very important point. Some are so mesmerized by the dream of “properly gussied-up” Masses that they completely forget (or discount) the matters that you mentioned. I find it scary.

 

[benedictgal]

The problem is that we have seemed to have forgotten the truly sacred nature of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and have shifted it to something horizontal that celebrates ourselves rather than give God worship. It’s about proper ars celebrandi. It is about removing the mood of Wall Street from the sanctuary.

As one of the priests in a blog on the revised translations observed, “Good liturgy is its own catechesis.” Rather than try to denigrate the OP, we should be happy that someone is taking the initiative to try and get things done at his parish. All it takes is one person to try and get the ball rolling.

 

[roadsend]

As sacristan at my parish I try to subtly make suggestions in favor of tradition and of solemnity whenever I feel I have a good chance of a favorable response to an idea or a hint. I tread lightly, however, because pushing it just makes one seem like one of the “crazies”. …

Yup. It seems as if just about all of the visible and audible things that identified us as Catholic are gone, de-emphasized, or frowned upon.

Hardly anyone bows or genuflects during the Mass.
Movie theater entertainment type atmosphere at Mass. New juvenile rituals spontaneously arising (e.g.Holding Hands Ritual, often including the Human Chain Ritual).
Our music and chants have largely been replaced with Protestant music or music indistinguishable from Protestant music.
Communion rails, high altars, and often kneelers and tabernacles gone.
New churches looking like warehouses or auditoriums.
Statues replaced with banners.
Etc.
Etc.

Most all this destruction occurred in less than ten years and none of it is mandated by Vatican II.

I still feel like I have walked into an Alice in Wonderland episode when I go to Mass.

A real shame that those who love Catholic Tradition should be thought of as “crazies” by the modernists running so many of our parishes and dioceses.

Keep up the good work in the sacristy. Maybe my children or grandchildren will live to see the recovery of the spiritual treasury, which we have lost.

 

[StevenDunn]

That’s fine just as long as you aren’t trying to equate solemnity with traditionalism.

Solemnity IS traditional.

Why would you even do such a thing? To satisfy yourself? I can just imagine the celebrant sitting down with it on – did you set-up one of those small benches for him as well? Was it all crinkled when he stood up? There are some things from the past that are very pleasing – things that should be preserved. The fiddleback chasuble isn’t one of them. That was a very dark period in chasuble design. I am glad the Church reverted back to earlier, more aesthetically pleasing designs.

1. Assuming the presider’s chair is of a reasonable size, you can just put the back end of the chasuble over the chair’s back before he sits, and it doesn’t crumple up.
2. All vestments crumple when you sit on them. This is a non-point.
3. It’s a lot easier to keep a fiddleback from being sat on than any gothic vestment.
4. I like the fiddleback, but I also like the full gothic. But that’s unimportant, because traditional practice doesn’t hinge on preference. There’s nothing wrong with picking a fiddleback, or a full gothic, or a half gothic. If he pulled out a phelonion, well, that’d be an issue.

“Conspiring?” Really? Why exactly would you get rid of albs for cassocks/surplices?

Because Catholic practice is to wear cassocks and surplices when serving. The server is a stand-in for an acolyte, which is a minor order cleric. Everyone that celebrates or assists at the altar is a cleric or a stand-in for one, and this has always been the case. Wearing a cassock communicates this fact.

Why would you vest a server in an alb? It’s a vestment that is associated exclusively with actual clerics, and not with servers.

Why should you impose your personal preference on traditional Catholic practice?

So now your OF’s are “bland?” You’re able to make them spicey by having the celebrant wear a fiddleback or the severs cassocks/surplices?

No, but it does make them more traditional. Which is what he wants. Why do you wish to impose your personal preference on traditional Catholic practice?

Ummmmmm, no thanks. I think I’ll go to Mass or watch one on EWTN.

I guess we finally agree on something.

 

[PA650]

Yup. It seems as if just about all of the visible and audible things that identified us as Catholic are gone, de-emphasized, or frowned upon.

Hardly anyone bows or genuflects during the Mass.
Movie theater entertainment type atmosphere at Mass. New juvenile rituals spontaneously arising (e.g.Holding Hands Ritual, often including the Human Chain Ritual).
Our music and chants have largely been replaced with Protestant music or music indistinguishable from Protestant music.
Communion rails, high altars, and often kneelers and tabernacles gone.
New churches looking like warehouses or auditoriums.
Statues replaced with banners.
Etc.
Etc.

Most all this destruction occurred in less than ten years and none of it is mandated by Vatican II.

I still feel like I have walked into an Alice in Wonderland episode when I go to Mass.

A real shame that those who love Catholic Tradition should be thought of as “crazies” by the modernists running so many of our parishes and dioceses.

Keep up the good work in the sacristy. Maybe my children or grandchildren will live to see the recovery of the spiritual treasury, which we have lost.

Iconoclasm is the word that springs to mind after reading your post, at least in regard to the interior of some, if not many Catholic churches. Nevertheless, the tide is turning back to tradition as newly ordained priests do not harbor any ill feelings that have plagued some members of the Church following the Second Vatican Council with regard to tradition.

Why would you even do such a thing? To satisfy yourself? I can just imagine the celebrant sitting down with it on – did you set-up one of those small benches for him as well? Was it all crinkled when he stood up? There are some things from the past that are very pleasing – things that should be preserved. The fiddleback chasuble isn’t one of them. That was a very dark period in chasuble design. I am glad the Church reverted back to earlier, more aesthetically pleasing designs.

Frankly, I hardly hold the same viewpoint you have regarding this particular type of chasuble. Moreover, it seems to suit the Holy Father quite well, I would say:

http://images.chron.com/photos/2008/03/21/10891418/600xPopupGallery.jpg

Overall, StevenDunn, I wish you all the luck in bringing back tradition to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the Ordinary Form.

 

[Luger]

Solemnity IS traditional.

That is such a load of blarney! “Traditionalism” is in no way synonymous with solemness. No how, no way. It’s repulsive to see people try to sell that notion too.

A Mass with all the bells and whistles could also licitly include many progressive elements. It would still be an extremely solemn Mass. “Traditionalists” like to think they have a corner on solemnity within the Mass and that’s just false advertising.

Fiddlebacks are hideous by design. If they were a product of VC2 they would (rightfully) be attacked by “traditionalists” as being hideous. They are a prime example of something that is traditional but not in the least solemn. They are protected by some because they were once used, not because of their intrinsic beauty.

It would be hilarious to see a priest walking around in a crumpled-up fiddleback to the delight of the traditionalists on hand…

Because Catholic practice is to wear cassocks and surplices when serving. The server is a stand-in for an acolyte, which is a minor order cleric. Everyone that celebrates or assists at the altar is a cleric or a stand-in for one, and this has always been the case. Wearing a cassock communicates this fact.

Why would you vest a server in an alb? It’s a vestment that is associated exclusively with actual clerics, and not with servers…

What?

First, instituted acolytes are not “minor order clerics.” That’s simply not true.

Second, the “Catholic practice” is “GIRM 339. In the dioceses of the United States of America, acolytes, altar servers, lectors, and other lay ministers may wear the alb or other suitable vesture or other appropriate and dignified clothing.” The cassock/surplice is not given primacy over the alb by the Church for such applications.

Your comment “Everyone that celebrates or assists at the altar is a cleric or a stand-in for one, and this has always been the case. Wearing a cassock communicates this fact.” may not be correct but it would certainly apply to EITHER an alb OR a cassock/surplice.

Why would I vest a server in an alb? For two reasons. First the Church allows it. Second, it’s a vestment proper to ALL Catholics. The alb is NOT “a vestment that is associated exclusively with actual clerics, and not with servers.”

 

[Pregustator]

I don’t care what they look, act, and sound like during their so-called “masses.”

They advocate gay marriage and abortion, two heinous sins. They align themselves with organizations that teach fuzzy-wuzzy theology about the Lord Jesus Christ.

As far as I’m concerned, they’re wolves in the Lamb’s clothing and will suffer a greater punishment for holding out the form of religion but not the substance.

Holy over-reactions, Batman. I suggested that the original poster observe an Episcopalian liturgy, not that he become Episcopalian. The Anglican Communion is brimming with heresy, yes, but I felt no need to state the obvious or to make that completely irrelevant point.

The point I meant to make is that, as far as dressing up the contemporary Mass goes, with respect to vestments, pomp and circumstance, and what have you, the Anglicans/Episcopalians–despite what one may think of them otherwise–have really nailed it. Most Episcopalian or Anglican liturgies I have attended have seemed to me more Catholic than the Catholic Mass.

 

[Luger]

Holy over-reactions, Batman. I suggested that the original poster observe an Episcopalian liturgy, not that he become Episcopalian. The Anglican Communion is brimming with heresy, yes, but I felt no need to state the obvious or to make that completely irrelevant point.

The point I meant to make is that, as far as dressing up the contemporary Mass goes, with respect to vestments, pomp and circumstance, and what have you, the Anglicans/Episcopalians–despite what one may think of them otherwise–have really nailed it. Most Episcopalian or Anglican liturgies I have attended have seemed to me more Catholic than the Catholic Mass.

So being “Catholic” is now a matter of “pomp and circumstance?”

 

[benedictgal]

So being “Catholic” is now a matter of “pomp and circumstance?”

With all due respect, please do not try to twist and contort what others in this thread have been saying. Solemnity and Tradition are synonymous. What the OF needs, in most parishes, is an injection of solemnity, dignity and majesty. This comes in the form of sacred music, proper interior and exterior disposition and yes, even vesture on the part of the celebrant.

You roll your eyes at this (by virtue of the symbol you chose at the end of your post), but, if you were to observe the Papal Masses since April 20, 2005, you might have seen an injection of all of these elements in a huge manner by Pope Benedict XVI. He is leading by example. You may choose to balk at the example that he is setting and demean it by labeling it as mere “pomp and circumstance”, but, Peter is leading the way. He is setting the standard by which the Mass should be celebrated.

 

[Pregustator]

So being “Catholic” is now a matter of “pomp and circumstance?”

I don’t recall saying that, but the topic of this thread, you may have noticed, has to do with introducing elements of solemnity into the celebration of the contemporary Mass in order to present it in a more traditional and dignified manner. So that’s what I am responding to. The topic of the thread is not “what is being Catholic a matter of?”

 

[Luger]

I don’t recall saying that, but the topic of this thread, you may have noticed, has to do with introducing elements of solemnity into the celebration of the contemporary Mass in order to present it in a more traditional and dignified manner. So that’s what I am responding to. The topic of the thread is not “what is being Catholic a matter of?”

That’s the inference I took.

“Introducing elements of solemnity” into the Ordinary Form of the Mass is simply choosing all (or almost all) that the GIRM offers as options. Doing so makes the Mass more solemn and in my opinion more reverent and dignified if correctly executed. In no way does it make the celebration of the Mass “more traditional.” That’s not only inaccurate, it’s repulsive.

I think that’s why “traditionalists” turn me off as much as they do. They like to suggest that all that is good, all that is solemn is “traditional” and that’s nothing more than malarkey.

Much like those who attempt to sell the lie that the EF is inherently more solemn than the OF. That too is malarkey. The EF is certainly more “traditional” (although not as ancient) but in no way is it inherently more solemn.

 

[StevenDunn]

The EF is certainly more “traditional” (although not as ancient) but in no way is it inherently more solemn.

What do you mean here? Perhaps I misunderstand, but it sounds as if you are suggesting the OF is more ancient than the EF.

 

[Luger]

What do you mean here? Perhaps I misunderstand, but it sounds as if you are suggesting the OF is more ancient than the EF.

Study the history of the sacrificial liturgies of the Catholic Church beginning with the early church period. Study how they developed over the centuries – in both the West and the East. Compare and contrast the West and the East as they pertains to liturgical antiquity.

You’ll soon find that there were many generations of sacrificial liturgies in the Catholic Church that are far older than the Tridentine Mass. If you spend enough time in study you’ll also come to realize that the OF Mass has many features that are truly ancient. Features from the very earlier sacrificial liturgies. Features that predate the EF Mass and are in fact have never been part of the EF Mass.

 

[Pregustator]

In no way does it make the celebration of the Mass “more traditional.” That’s not only inaccurate, it’s repulsive.

I think that’s why “traditionalists” turn me off as much as they do. They like to suggest that all that is good, all that is solemn is “traditional” and that’s nothing more than malarkey.

You seem to enjoy making an issue everytime someone uses the word “traditional” in a way that doesn’t fit into your precise definition of the word. It isn’t “repulsive”, for heaven’s sake, it’s just a matter of common parlance. Give people a break. Is this the way you converse with people face-to-face? “Don’t use that word! What you actually meant to say was this…” Crimony.

The rest of us seem to know what we mean, so lighten up.

 

[StevenDunn]

Study the history of the sacrificial liturgies of the Catholic Church beginning with the early church period. Study how they developed over the centuries – in both the West and the East. Compare and contrast the West and the East as they pertains to liturgical antiquity.

You’ll soon find that there were many generations of sacrificial liturgies in the Catholic Church that are far older than the Tridentine Mass. If you spend enough time in study you’ll also come to realize that the OF Mass has many features that are truly ancient. Features from the very earlier sacrificial liturgies. Features that predate the EF Mass and are in fact have never been part of the EF Mass.

I’m well aware of this. But seriously, do you think the OF and the Divine Liturgy of St. James are of a piece? And why should we restore things that the West moved away from? And if ancient is always better, where do you draw the line?

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please keep the discussion civil, everyone. Thank you.

 

[malphono]

I’m well aware of this. But seriously, do you think the OF and the Divine Liturgy of St. James are of a piece? And why should we restore things that the West moved away from? And if ancient is always better, where do you draw the line?

Yes, I noticed that blanket statement about “ancient” too, and it prompts me to wonder just which of those “features” is so ancient?

Whichever they may be, though, what some folks, apparently, don’t quite get is that there are reasons why particular “ancient” practices were abandoned. Reviving a practice from antiquity solely for the reason that it is “ancient” is considered antiquarianism.

I have to add here that in the Oriental (and to a far lesser extent, the Eastern) Churches, there are some very ancient practices that were shelved in the 16th century and later, but that was due to latinization. IOW, those practices did not disappear for an an “organic” reason. On the contrary, they disappeared due to outside (in this case, Western) influence. Which means that revival of those practices does not come under the heading of antiquarianism, but rather under the heading of “restoration.” The same cannot be said for abandoned practices in the Latin Church.

Another unsolicited :twocents: