Traditionalizing our OF Mass

[archangel04]

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.

Well I agree with most part, but it’s not really the worst, reason why is because most practices “traditionalist” might condemn are not dogmatic or moral issues. Now if they deny the fact the OF is valid (as long it has valid priest, words, and matter are present) then yeah that’s really up there. But the majority of those “catholics” who support/promote abortion, contraception, gay unions, female priest, and question the Papal infallibility, “tend” to be part of the OF side, and those are the worst cafeteria catholics who go against these teachings.

 

[Luger]

Well I agree with most part, but it’s not really the worst, reason why is because most practices “traditionalist” might condemn are not dogmatic or moral issues. Now if they deny the fact the OF is valid (as long it has valid priest, words, and matter are present) then yeah that’s really up there. But the majority of those “catholics” who support/promote abortion, contraception, gay unions, female priest, and question the Papal infallibility, “tend” to be part of the OF side, and those are the worst cafeteria catholics who go against these teachings.

That’s because 99.9% of the world’s Catholic Christians are not “traditonalists!”

Good grief, enough of this topic already.

 

[Luger]

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

1. 
   In all sincerity people wonder why “traditionalists” are looked upon with grave reserve?

 

[archangel04]

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.

Actually I do get it, the only problem I would have with the OF, actually more with the GIRM, is that it allows for too much outside influence to be introduce to the mass. I didn’t grow up during the time of the TLM, and perhaps the EF is celebrated more reverent because it’s smaller in numbers, but this should only teach us that we must be carefully without precious liturgy, because every evil know that in order to shake the foundation of the Church you must attack the essential part of it which is the Mass. I feel that the suppression of the TLM was allowed by God to help us appreciate what we almost lost. Now that the EF can be widely celebrated it will influence the OF on what the Vat 2 fathers had in mind.

 

[benedictgal]

That’s because 99.9% of the world’s Catholic Christians are not “traditonalists!”

Good grief, enough of this topic already.

And your statistical data comes from? It would help if you had a qualifiable source for your information, Luger.

I cannot help but wonder why you cannot see the connection between solemnity, dignity, majesty and tradtion. You also forget, with all due respect, that the Church rests on two pillars, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. So, then, if we follow the reverse of your logic, then all Catholic Christians would be traditionalist because we adhere to the Sacred Traditions of our Church. These traditions also cover the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Once again, Pope Benedict XVI makes the connection very clear between the EF and the OF. He wrote that he liberalized the use of the EF so that it and the OF can mutually enrich each other. Evidently, he sees the link rather clearly.

 

[archangel04]

That’s because 99.9% of the world’s Catholic Christians are not “traditonalists!”

Good grief, enough of this topic already.

Exactly, but you equate “traditionals” who condemn or are against (which I am not part of) certain practices which are not dogmatic or infallible of the Church as being the worst of cafeteria catholics, yet most “tradionalist” uphold sanctity of life, marriage, and Dogmatic teaching.

 

[StevenDunn]

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.

You’re not even making sense. Are you still following this thread or just complaining? I’m talking about a diocesan OF Mass. The Church allows CIH and our bishop supports both CIH and COT. I don’t like CIH, but that’s not my call to make, now is it?

 

[StevenDunn]

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 not what I said.

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.

And my point is that supporting a liturgical tradition simply b/c it’s older is antiquarianism. And I don’t know a single Orthodox Christian that has any positive sentiments towards the NO, but many have a favorable opinion of the Latin Mass.

And I’ve already gone over the tradition and solemnity issue, but it’s clear you’re not even attempting to understand what I’ve written.

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

Agreed. I’ve already said as much before, but you kept misreading it.

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.

I think we quit having a discussion a few pages ago.

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.

Yes, they were imposed. If a practice changes b/c it is literally demanded, and not b/c anyone voluntarily chooses to do so, it is an imposition. Whether the imposition was correct is another matter entirely. But the OF WAS imposed.

BTW, this is where the subject of Eastern latinizations comes in. I’m not obfuscating.

Also, I’m not redacting liturgical history - you’d understand that if you quit refusing to engage with my broader point.

So many “traditionalists” hammered-away for so long exclaiming the OF Mass was not valid.

It’s 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.

Wait, so the Pope gave support to the OF, but if I imitate his changes in my own parish(with the consent of the priest) you oppose it. I literally don’t understand what you’re even talking about anymore.

Also, the “organic” argument doesn’t support the OF. Far from it. But it does support celebrating the OF in a way that is in conformity with Latin tradition.

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

In some ways you’re correct. I’m not a fan of reactionary traditionalism. But there is a more educated and subtle form of traditionalism, such as that advocated by the Holy Father, to which your comment doesn’t apply in the least.

 

[StevenDunn]

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.

As I’ve already posted, I’m not a fan of reactionary traditionalism. I think many of the traditionalists one encounters online have views that are indefensible. Which you would know if you took the time to actually read what I’ve written instead of putting traditionalist in scare quotes and talking to me like I’m the strawman you’ve envisioned.

I’m also not a fan of those, like yourself, that think they can pick and choose from the tradition as it suits them without any sense of the actual historical development of the Church. That’s cafeteria Catholicism, as well.

 

[StevenDunn]

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.

So you attacked me for wanting to change the way in which the Masses I’m coordinating (remember that part?) are said so that they would be more traditional? Oh, wait, that’s right, you hate traditionalists so if I’m making the Mass more traditional I’m actually corrupting the beautiful 1st century vision of the Church which the OF embodies. Got it.

But seriously, there are two issues here: 1) solemnity and 2) tradition. We both agree the Mass should be solemn. You disagree that traditional == solemn, since traditional practice can be abused. I agree with you. I would take a solemn OF over a horribly-celebrated EF any day.

BUT there is another question that comes from this: if both are celebrated solemnly, which is more appropriate, and why? And it is in answering this question where I think you are in error.

 

[Timothy17]

In all sincerity people wonder why “traditionalists” are looked upon with grave reserve?

Would you like to elaborate on what you meant here ? I will openly admit my frustrations with the NO rubrics, but unless you are going to provide a specific problem or concern with what I have posted, I am not going to assume what’s on your mind.

Please be more charitable in your future posts, and at least bother to make an argument or point out a problem you may have.

Pax,
Tim

 

[StevenDunn]

That’s because 99.9% of the world’s Catholic Christians are not “traditonalists!”

Good grief, enough of this topic already.

Poor liturgy and poor catechesis go hand in hand. But you are right, traditionalists have a self-selection bias working in their favor.

Also, I think I’m not alone in being offended by your constant use of scare quotes around the word traditionalist.

 

[StevenDunn]

In all sincerity people wonder why “traditionalists” are looked upon with grave reserve?

What was wrong with what he wrote? What do you disagree with?

 

[stephraim]

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.

No one here is condemning the OF. If you read carefully, you’d understand that. This thread is specifically about using all the options available which are more “traditional”. Every suggestion is allowed by the GIRM, CB, and RS. Why is it “cafeteria Catholicism” to utilize options the Church has specifically given us? If you really believe this is cafeteria Catholicism, then the Pope himself is the worst cafeteria Catholic.

 

[StevenDunn]

No one here is condemning the OF. If you read carefully, you’d understand that. This thread is specifically about using all the options available which are more “traditional”. Every suggestion is allowed by the GIRM, CB, and RS. Why is it “cafeteria Catholicism” to utilize options the Church has specifically given us? If you really believe this is cafeteria Catholicism, then the Pope himself is the worst cafeteria Catholic.

Right back at you:

 

[Timothy17]

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.

Dear Luger,
I almost took this statement of yours for granted, because I assumed irregular or “abusive” celebrations of the Mass must be the norm, because it is (or, perhaps now, was) common with the OF.

Problem : There’s a perfectly logical reason why abuses or irregularities would be common in a New Order of the Mass : because it’s new. Moreover, the rubrics of the OF involve multiple forms in and of itself. There’s a lot of “options” in the OF, like 4 different Eucharistic prayers, for example. This makes it harder to memorize from the pew and increases the chances of things going wrong, (the more bells and whistles…).

I am going to have to call you out on that statement, then, because there are logical reasons why the OF would be celebrated with problems, but I can think of exactly none as to why the EF would have been celebrated with frequent problems and irregularities, abuses, etc., seeing as it was the norm for 500 years, and for and through so many successive generations. In order to believe you, we must assume that the way things are today with the OF must have been the way they were with the EF for the past 500+ years, and of the same gravity and frequency.

So, please provice proof that the Tridentine Mass was plagued with abuses and problems during the Tridentine period.

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.

Please read the Ottaviani Intervention for plenty of reasons to question the formula in the OF Mass. The OF Mass is hardly as sublime or serious as the EF’s content. You don’t need to be a theologian to read the one and then the other’s version and see a definite watering down and certain change happening.

Pax,
Tim

 

[Luger]

No one here is condemning the OF. If you read carefully, you’d understand that. This thread is specifically about using all the options available which are more “traditional”. Every suggestion is allowed by the GIRM, CB, and RS. Why is it “cafeteria Catholicism” to utilize options the Church has specifically given us? If you really believe this is cafeteria Catholicism, then the Pope himself is the worst cafeteria Catholic.

I never said that anyone was condemning the OF Mass – --although one johnny-come-lately is now making some lamentable comments concerning the OF and that’s sad – but not unexpected.

What I am saying is that it’s wrong to label solemn options in the OF Mass as being “traditional.” They are solemn, not “traditional.” Some like to infer that such options only take place in “traditional” celebrations of the OF Mass and that is patently false. A Mass does not become more “traditional” when these options are exercised. The Mass become more solemn.

On to another subject.

I label (correctly I believe) Catholics who publicly reject (as being inherently defective) elements of the Mass that the Church has approved as cafeteria catholics. They reject the Church’s guidance and pick and choose what they will accept as if the Church is a cafeteria all under the guise of “traditionalism.”

 

[stephraim]

What I am saying is that it’s wrong to label solemn options in the OF Mass as being “traditional.” They are solemn, not “traditional.” Some like to infer that such options only take place in “traditional” celebrations of the OF Mass and that is patently false. A Mass does not become more “traditional” when these options are exercised. The Mass become more solemn.

I agree and I disagree. Yes, it makes the mass more solemn, yet since these options were derived from the EF which existed for 500 years (and some elements were around much longer than that), I would also classify them as “traditional”.

I label (correctly I believe) Catholics who publicly reject (as being inherently defective) elements of the Mass that the Church has approved as cafeteria catholics. They reject the Church’s guidance and pick and choose what they will accept as if the Church is a cafeteria all under the guise of “traditionalism.”

It is not wrong to disagree with the Church. Many saints did, and they tried, mostly successful in their attempts, to renew certain aspects they felt were wrong. When their attempts failed, however, they submitted to the authority of the Church. Indeed, many Fathers of the Church disagreed on certain aspects of doctrine, yet they are honored as saints together. It is wrong, though, to blatantly reject Church dogma, and not submit to her Magisterium.

I, as well as many here, do not reject the elements of the Mass. The OF has all that is needed to make the Holy Sacrifice. I think that many just prefer, and perhaps even miss, the explicit prayers which emphasize the sacrificial nature. Many others probably just lament the poor translation ICEL gave us (soon to be rectified - ).

The point is that every “traditional” (or solemn, if you will) option, such as the 6 candlesticks and crucifix on the mensa, the use of incense, chanted readings, the Gospel procession accompanied by candles and incense, ad orientem posture, Gregorian chant, ministers standing/moving with hands joined, etc. are all in the GIRM, LM, CB, and RS, and are therefore licit.They also reflect a celebration of Mass which more closely resembles the EF in outward appearance (in other words, to our senses) and in that sense, they are “traditional”.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Well I agree with most part, but it’s not really the worst, reason why is because most practices “traditionalist” might condemn are not dogmatic or moral issues. Now if they deny the fact the OF is valid (as long it has valid priest, words, and matter are present) then yeah that’s really up there. But the majority of those “catholics” who support/promote abortion, contraception, gay unions, female priest, and question the Papal infallibility, “tend” to be part of the OF side, and those are the worst cafeteria catholics who go against these teachings.

I don’t agree with any of those…I support Church teaching on all those. I don’t pick and choose and yet there are those on the traditionalist side who seem to ignore what the Church does say…they seem to pick and choose…and think that they know better then the Church…go read post #93.

 

[benedictgal]

I don’t agree with any of those…I support Church teaching on all those. I don’t pick and choose and yet there are those on the traditionalist side who seem to ignore what the Church does say…they seem to pick and choose…and think that they know better then the Church…go read post #93.

I did not see anything necessarily wrong with that post. Maybe the manner of expressing the opinion could have been tweaked, but, he does raise some valid points.

Ad Orientem is valid. In fact, Pope Benedict has always supported this posture for use in the Mass. Since St. Peter’s is oriented towards the East, he automatically assumes that posture. When he celebrates Mass in his chapel, he uses this posture. His personal secretary, Msgr. Georg Ganswein, also uses this posture. In fact, he employed it when he celebrated his Silver Jubilee Mass back in Germany earlier this year.

Ad Orientem was never done away with by the Church. The CDWDS has consistently supported this posture to the point of having to send letters to the bishops to remind them that this is a valid posture. The priest is not turning his back to the people; rather, he is leading us in prayer to God. That is actually how Moses prayed.

The OP’s pastor wants to use that. He is excercising a legitimate option. He is also helping to orient the faithful in the proper direction of prayer by turning towards the Lord.