Traditionalizing our OF Mass

[Luger]

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.

It’s repulsive in this context.

“Traditionalists” hammer-away at the OF Mass. Too many like to sell the notion that the OF Mass is devoid of all things solemn are and that the EF is choke-full of all things solemn and that’s simply inaccurate. This conversation is not about making the OF Mass more “traditional.” It’s about celebrating it in a more solemn manner.

The OF can and is celebrated in a manner every bit (if not more so) as grand as the most formal pontifical high EF Mass.

 

[Luger]

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?

You’re aware of the history of sacrificial liturgies in the Catholic Church and you still ask the question “Traditionalizing our OF Mass”?

The Divine Liturgy of Saint James is extremely uncommon – not that it matters. The most common sacrificial liturgy in the Byzantine East is the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom.

Yes, I think the OF Mass has far more in common with the DLSJC then does the EF Mass. My Eastern priest believes that as well.

I never said “ancient is always better” but it certainly helps to understand that the history of sacrificial liturgies in the West did not start with the EF Mass.

 

[benedictgal]

It’s repulsive in this context.

“Traditionalists” hammer-away at the OF Mass. Too many like to sell the notion that the OF Mass is devoid of all things solemn are and that the EF is choke-full of all things solemn and that’s simply inaccurate. This conversation is not about making the OF Mass more “traditional.” It’s about celebrating it in a more solemn manner.

The OF can and is celebrated in a manner every bit (if not more so) as grand as the most formal pontifical high EF Mass.

But, that does not give us the right to denigrate the EF of the Mass nor ridicule the OP for trying to do his part to restore solemnity and a sense of the sacred to the OF in his parish. Unfortunately, not a few parishes have thrown out the traditional in favor of the less formal.

I do not know if you read the letter the Holy Father addressed to the bishops regarding Summorum Pontificem. It was his intent that both the EF and the OF mutually benefit each other.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

To the OP…some of these suggestions are just fine…but I would caution you about some. You are not trying to make an OF Mass into a TLM Mass…correct? So some of the suggestions such as having people receive COTT or having everyone kneel for communion would seem to me that you are headed for trouble. Now…allowing people to…maybe encouraging or expaining those things…ok. I know for one…if someone said I HAVE to kneel AND I have to receive COTT with current church teachings…I would switch parishes. But…more reverent hymns…maybe putting some Latin in…getting people to have a more reverent atmosphere before Mass…all ok to me.

And I’m no expert but isn’t the position of the priest…doesn’t that change what type of Mass it is? I’d be VERY confused if I went to Mass and suddenly the priest was facing the opposite way. I would think that I am not at an OF Mass.

Just my :twocents:

 

[malphono]

And I’m no expert but isn’t the position of the priest…doesn’t that change what type of Mass it is? I’d be VERY confused if I went to Mass and suddenly the priest was facing the opposite way. I would think that I am not at an OF Mass.

Despite the near ubiquity of versus populum celebration, ad orientem is actually the presumed posture according to the editio typica of the OF. The links I noted in an [post=7077501]earlier post[/post] refer to a priest and a bishop both speaking on behalf of restoring ad orientem to the OF. Although the OF in any degree of its “reform of the reform” mode is indeed rare, when it is done, it’s normally ad orientem. If it’s the true “reform of the reform” it’s always ad orientem.

 

[stephraim]

Yes, I think the OF Mass has far more in common with the DLSJC then does the EF Mass. My Eastern priest believes that as well.

I never said “ancient is always better” but it certainly helps to understand that the history of sacrificial liturgies in the West did not start with the EF Mass.

Neither did it start with the Ordinary Form. I too have studied liturgy and liturgiology for years. While parts of the OF are much more similar to the Ordo Romanus Primus of the 8th century, the fact of the matter is that Collect style prayers are a Latin creation of the 4th-5th century and really show little resemblance to Eastern style prayers and the eloquent rhetoric of Greek the early Church of Rome used (as evidenced through the Great Prayer of 1 Clement–clearly a liturgical prayer). As well, aspects of the EF are just as ancient as the OF according to Jungmann, Fortescue, et al.

I myself prefer the simplicity of the OF, as well as its similarity to OR I, yet I do **not **view “traditional” as “repulsive”. The pope himself, the Bishop of Rome whose liturgy we emulate, has included these “traditional” elements in his own celebrations of the liturgy, including seven candlesticks and the crucifix upon the mensa of the altar, use of incense at all the allowed moments, chanted readings, the Gospel procession accompanied by candles and incense, sacred music, etc. There are other “traditional” elements which I’ve seen at papal Masses on EWTN. All these are things ancient and “traditional” (some even dating to OR I), yet are rarely seen at ordinary parishes here in Texas (and I’ve seen quite a few all over the state).

By the way, the EF offertory prayers (removed from the OF) correspond better to Eastern liturgy prayers than the OF oratio super oblata. So does the abbreviated cycle of lessons.

 

[stephraim]

And I’m no expert but isn’t the position of the priest…doesn’t that change what type of Mass it is? I’d be VERY confused if I went to Mass and suddenly the priest was facing the opposite way. I would think that I am not at an OF Mass.:shrug

It does not change the type of Mass. The OF is the OF, no matter what the orientation of the priest. In fact, as brother malphono explained, the rubrics of the OF actually imply ad orientem posture. It is, as modern scholarship has revealed, the more ancient practice; unfortunately, most people have never seen it. It takes good catechesis before implementation.

 

[StevenDunn]

To the OP…some of these suggestions are just fine…but I would caution you about some. You are not trying to make an OF Mass into a TLM Mass…correct? So some of the suggestions such as having people receive COTT or having everyone kneel for communion would seem to me that you are headed for trouble. Now…allowing people to…maybe encouraging or expaining those things…ok. I know for one…if someone said I HAVE to kneel AND I have to receive COTT with current church teachings…I would switch parishes. But…more reverent hymns…maybe putting some Latin in…getting people to have a more reverent atmosphere before Mass…all ok to me.

And I’m no expert but isn’t the position of the priest…doesn’t that change what type of Mass it is? I’d be VERY confused if I went to Mass and suddenly the priest was facing the opposite way. I would think that I am not at an OF Mass.

Just my :twocents:

We cannot change the manner of receiving communion, but our priest could, if he desired, celebrate ad orientem.

 

[StevenDunn]

Neither did it start with the Ordinary Form. I too have studied liturgy and liturgiology for years. While parts of the OF are much more similar to the Ordo Romanus Primus of the 8th century, the fact of the matter is that Collect style prayers are a Latin creation of the 4th-5th century and really show little resemblance to Eastern style prayers and the eloquent rhetoric of Greek the early Church of Rome used (as evidenced through the Great Prayer of 1 Clement–clearly a liturgical prayer). As well, aspects of the EF are just as ancient as the OF according to Jungmann, Fortescue, et al.

I myself prefer the simplicity of the OF, as well as its similarity to OR I, yet I do **not **view “traditional” as “repulsive”. The pope himself, the Bishop of Rome whose liturgy we emulate, has included these “traditional” elements in his own celebrations of the liturgy, including seven candlesticks and the crucifix upon the mensa of the altar, use of incense at all the allowed moments, chanted readings, the Gospel procession accompanied by candles and incense, sacred music, etc. There are other “traditional” elements which I’ve seen at papal Masses on EWTN. All these are things ancient and “traditional” (some even dating to OR I), yet are rarely seen at ordinary parishes here in Texas (and I’ve seen quite a few all over the state).

By the way, the EF offertory prayers (removed from the OF) correspond better to Eastern liturgy prayers than the OF oratio super oblata. So does the abbreviated cycle of lessons.

Thank you. This is my understanding, as well. Liturgy doesn’t break down into ‘traditional’ and ‘non-traditional,’ as if the liturgy were always in stasis. If more people understood this arguments like this would become less heated.

In my opinion, though, we can’t create an artificially simpler liturgy through mixing and matching pieces of our past. We have an obligation to take what was given to us and live it out. If changes need to happen, they will happen in a natural way. We can have a solemn OF Mass, but what does it mean for us to make it more solemn through practices that are alien to the Latin experience? I therefore believe we have to make the OF both more solemn and more EF-like in character. We have to avoid play-acting, either as antiquarian OF supporters or traditionalist EF supporters. The Mass isn’t a Renaissance Faire.

 

[stephraim]

We have to avoid play-acting, either as antiquarian OF supporters or traditionalist EF supporters. The Mass isn’t a Renaissance Faire.

 

[StevenDunn]

You’re aware of the history of sacrificial liturgies in the Catholic Church and you still ask the question “Traditionalizing our OF Mass”?

The Divine Liturgy of Saint James is extremely uncommon – not that it matters. The most common sacrificial liturgy in the Byzantine East is the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom.

Yes, I think the OF Mass has far more in common with the DLSJC then does the EF Mass. My Eastern priest believes that as well.

I never said “ancient is always better” but it certainly helps to understand that the history of sacrificial liturgies in the West did not start with the EF Mass.

Yes, I do ask the question, b/c I don’t believe in antiquarianism. It doesn’t matter what Catholics did liturgically in the 1st century if those practices were abandoned. You can only believe in reviving ancient(and arguably contextless) practices by also believing the liturgical practices that came later were in error, which is antiquarianism. I don’t believe my ancestors were in error, nor do I think it’s reasonable to revive millennial-old(or more!) practices. But it IS reasonable to revive practices that were forcibly suppressed within living memory.

That’s also why it doesn’t matter if the OF is closer to the DL, since we’re Latins and have our own traditions. I say this as a man that regularly attends the DL about twice a month. It also doesn’t matter what you, or I, or your Eastern priest think, because the tradition is independent of us. We have no right to impose ourselves on the received tradition. That’s disrespectful to the Church.

STILL, and this is important to mention, that doesn’t mean all later practices are ideal. But it does mean we have to treat them with respect and not throw them out because we’ve suddenly decided we don’t think they reflect our understanding of the past. For example, I think it’s reasonable to move the Triduum services back to the evening. But even that’s not a trivial decision.

As brother malphono mentioned, there is a long tradition of forced Latinizations in the Eastern Churches, so any removal of them is a restoration to its authentic form before these practices were imposed on it from without. Most of the radical changes in the OF Mass were similarly imposed. To remove them and return to the authentic Latin Tradition is a restoration.

 

[stephraim]

Yes, I do ask the question, b/c I don’t believe in antiquarianism. It doesn’t matter what Catholics did liturgically in the 1st century if those practices were abandoned. You can only believe in reviving ancient(and arguably contextless) practices by also believing the liturgical practices that came later were in error, which is antiquarianism. I don’t believe my ancestors were in error, nor do I think it’s reasonable to revive millennial-old(or more!) practices. But it IS reasonable to revive practices that were forcibly suppressed within living memory.

That’s also why it doesn’t matter if the OF is closer to the DL, since we’re Latins and have our own traditions. I say this as a man that regularly attends the DL about twice a month. It also doesn’t matter what you, or I, or your Eastern priest think, because the tradition is independent of us. We have no right to impose ourselves on the received tradition. That’s disrespectful to the Church.

STILL, and this is important to mention, that doesn’t mean all later practices are ideal. But it does mean we have to treat them with respect and not throw them out because we’ve suddenly decided we don’t think they reflect our understanding of the past. For example, I think it’s reasonable to move the Triduum services back to the evening. But even that’s not a trivial decision.

As brother malphono mentioned, there is a long tradition of forced Latinizations in the Eastern Churches, so any removal of them is a restoration to its authentic form before these practices were imposed on it from without. Most of the radical changes in the OF Mass were similarly imposed. To remove them and return to the authentic Latin Tradition is a restoration.

Once again,

 

[Luger]

We cannot change the manner of receiving communion, but our priest could, if he desired, celebrate ad orientem.

Oh my, really? The “traditonalists” I know focus on the “indult status” and bitterly question the conditions that must be met to use the indult AS IF they aren’t being met here locally which they are. They would NEVER concede that the Church allows CIH in many parts of the world and that’s it’s licitly used throughout the world.

 

[Adeodatus]

I don’t know what spirit of Revolution makes people insist that the priest show his back to God through the Mass, and that our Lord’s Body is to be passed out to unconsecrated hands. It makes me sad, though, and angry.

 

[Luger]

Yes, I do ask the question, b/c I don’t believe in antiquarianism. It doesn’t matter what Catholics did liturgically in the 1st century if those practices were abandoned. You can only believe in reviving ancient(and arguably contextless) practices by also believing the liturgical practices that came later were in error, which is antiquarianism. I don’t believe my ancestors were in error, nor do I think it’s reasonable to revive millennial-old(or more!) practices. But it IS reasonable to revive practices that were forcibly suppressed within living memory.

Wow, that means a great deal to me. To suggest liturgical practices were necessarily “in error” in the early church because they were never included in the Novus Ordo Mass of 1570 is without foundation.

That’s also why it doesn’t matter if the OF is closer to the DL, since we’re Latins and have our own traditions. I say this as a man that regularly attends the DL about twice a month. It also doesn’t matter what you, or I, or your Eastern priest think, because the tradition is independent of us. We have no right to impose ourselves on the received tradition. That’s disrespectful to the Church.

My point (because you asked) is the OF is simply closer to the ancient sacrificial liturgies of the Church and the East provides evidence. What you don’t have the right to do is erroneously equate “tradition” to solemnity.

STILL, and this is important to mention, that doesn’t mean all later practices are ideal. But it does mean we have to treat them with respect and not throw them out because we’ve suddenly decided we don’t think they reflect our understanding of the past. For example, I think it’s reasonable to move the Triduum services back to the evening. But even that’s not a trivial decision.

It also doesn’t mean that all “traditional” practices are solemn or that a practice must be traditional in order to be solemn.

As brother malphono mentioned, there is a long tradition of forced Latinizations in the Eastern Churches, so any removal of them is a restoration to its authentic form before these practices were imposed on it from without. Most of the radical changes in the OF Mass were similarly imposed. To remove them and return to the authentic Latin Tradition is a restoration.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, you just introduced a new subject out of left field – “latinizations.” How come? To obfuscate? It has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing.

As far as “Most of the radical changes in the OF Mass were similarly imposed.” is simply wrong. They are parts of the history of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that you wish to redact – I think you referred to them as antiquarian . Elements that you erroneously deem “in error” because they did not make it into the Novus Ordo Mass of 1570.

So many “traditionalists” hammered-away for so long exclaiming the OF Mass was not valid. When the OF received great support from Pope Benedict XVI they were forced to craft their “organic” argument which you are now essentially trying to use. In the end I see “traditionalism” as really nothing more than cafeteria catholicism – people picking and choosing what they will accept and what they will condemn no matter what the Church says

 

[Timothy17]

Well, my first question would be, is it necessary to use the Ordinary Form ? More EF mass availability can but only edify and show people the spiritual patrimony in the bosom of our Church.

If the EF is out of the question, which I would question as to why, but assuming that is so, the best you can do is demonstrate what the NO actually lacks in contrast to the EF, which is principally consistency. The switch-and-mix design of the NO rubrics makes memorization difficult, and anticipation harder, which creates anxiety during the Mass, something that should not be felt at all, or even brought to mind for that matter.

My suggestions, then :

1. 
   *]Stick to one usage of rubrics : Use those rubrics, as best you can, which touch on or point to quintessential and uniquely Catholic doctrines and dogmas. Repeat, repeat, and repeat (“repetition is they key to memory.”) Don’t alter it and fight any temptation to : this will allow those attending to have an opportunity to memorize it over the year(s). Repetition leads to a natural desire to add reverence, to speak in harmony, and to sing/speak with beauty.
   
   *] **Stress the prerogatives of the Priesthood **: Communion on the tongue confrms the Priest’s annointed hands, and reminds us that it is God who comes to us by Grace - we can but only receive Him, and it is He who’s acting, actuating and performing the Mass - not us.
   
   *] I’m sure others have already mentioned the benefit of Latin, Gregorian chant, et al. - avoid instruments, especially modern ones, as these prompt us into a celebration mindset of the secular style, not Holy Worship. Gregorian Chant restores the dignity of the human voice, it being given by God to us for us to sing his praises and issue our prayers to Him.
   
   The frustrations with the NO are largely scientific in nature, as the NO seems to disregard certain, basic, and simple norms of humanity and people : we remember best by repetition, we learn behaviour by immitation, and we are above all sensual creatures : colours, sounds, music, and smells effect our thoughts, and even our moods. Action draws away our attention (hence, “distraction”), silence and stillness command it : something as simple as a moment of silence before beginning each phase of the Mass will refresh the people in attendance, make them contemplate what has happened, and re-new their focus on what is about to happen. It also signals to their mind that something new or different has happened or will happen, like chapters in a book or a change of scenes in a movie.
   
   Pax,
   Tim

 

[archangel04]

Wow Luger it seems like you are arguing way too much out of emotion instead of logic. There are still way too many problems in the OF mass, some are lucky that their parish priest celebrates it right down to the rubrics, unfortunately many others have to deal with lay people who are on a power trip and distort the Holy Mass. I serve the OF for 10 years, I was there for Sunday mass, daily, confirmations, baptismal, Mass with the Bishop, and even ordination, but when I started attending the EF, it all blew it away when it came to solemnity. I felt a feeling of anger for the fact that my Church hid this form of the Mass away from me from my youth. But I realize that is not what I should feel, but instead give thanks to God what He has allowed me to find, and bring this over to the OF, but not enforce it down people throats, but to promote the EF so that people have an idea. Too many people (at least in my experience) see the OF as a common social gathering instead of what it truly is and if you don’t believe this then you are just blinding yourself from the truth.

 

[archangel04]

So many “traditionalists” hammered-away for so long exclaiming the OF Mass was not valid. When the OF received great support from Pope Benedict XVI they were forced to craft their “organic” argument which you are now essentially trying to use. In the end I see “traditionalism” as really nothing more than cafeteria catholicism – people picking and choosing what they will accept and what they will condemn no matter what the Church says

That is a low blow

 

[Luger]

That is a low blow

Albeit accurate.

I hear on a regular basis self-described “traditionalists” CONDEMN what the Church allow. It’s commonly seen on these forums. No, I’m not talking about them merely choosing the options they prefer and giving the reasons why. I am talking about CONDEMNING practices that the Church approves of. That’s cafeteria catholicism of the worst kind in my book.

 

[Luger]

Wow Luger it seems like you are arguing way too much out of emotion instead of logic. There are still way too many problems in the OF mass, some are lucky that their parish priest celebrates it right down to the rubrics, unfortunately many others have to deal with lay people who are on a power trip and distort the Holy Mass. I serve the OF for 10 years, I was there for Sunday mass, daily, confirmations, baptismal, Mass with the Bishop, and even ordination, but when I started attending the EF, it all blew it away when it came to solemnity. I felt a feeling of anger for the fact that my Church hid this form of the Mass away from me from my youth. But I realize that is not what I should feel, but instead give thanks to God what He has allowed me to find, and bring this over to the OF, but not enforce it down people throats, but to promote the EF so that people have an idea. Too many people (at least in my experience) see the OF as a common social gathering instead of what it truly is and if you don’t believe this then you are just blinding yourself from the truth.

You simply don’t get it.

When the Tridentine Mass was the ordinary form of the Mass and celebrated in huge numbers across the world it was OFTEN celebrated in an abusive manner. Was that a defect of the Mass? Of course not. It was a defect in the way it was celebrated. Today the Tridentine Mass is celebrated in minuscule numbers for people who demand the rubrics be followed – and they are. The Mass didn’t change. How it is celebrated has changed.

Far too often “traditionalists” attack the OF Mass based on how it is celebrated in individual parishes and not on its actual formulation (NOT that they have the authority to make their opinions mean anything.) That too is repugnant.