"traditionalizing" the ordinary form

[mick321]

I traditionalize the OF on a daily basis.

Five minutes before Mass begins, I say the Signum Crucis, Psalm 42 and the Confiteor.

After the mass is dismissed, I remain on my feet until the clergy have left the room. I then begin the introduction to the Last Gospel and continue through to the end. I then kneel and pray one Pater Noster, three Ave Marias, one Minor Doxology, one Fatima Prayer, one Salve Regina, one prayer to St. Michael and finally the Signum Crucis.

I offer these prayers very quietly, but unmistakeably in Latin.

It helps get me through politically-charged sermons like the one on Saturday which characterized the Holy Family as “illegal aliens” during the first years of Christ’s life.

Try it.

 

[OraLabora]

Jansenist clergy produced a Jansenist liturgy which turned most Catholics off of Mass. To pretend the Novus Ordo had nothing to do with the disintegration of our Church is nieve at best.

realcatholictv.com/cia/03Massdest/index.php Watch both parts

May God bless you in your vocation.

In Quebec the clergy directed just about all of daily life from the number of children one should have (i.e. as many as a woman’s body could stand), to who one could vote for:

“tomorrow is election day, and I remind all parishioners that it is their civic duty to vote according to their conscience, but remember: heaven is blue (Union Nationale), and hell is red (Liberal)”

The issue of borderline Jansenism has to do with the clergy’s belief that all of us were depraved, and thus had to be very strictly controlled.

The policies of very large families, while it permitted the survival of the the French Canadian race, also guaranteed that they would be kept poor and subservient, economically, to the English masters.

The stranglehold was such that Quebecers, in the “Quiet Revolution” of the '60s, deserted the Church in droves in rebellion; women in particular resented being the Church’s “baby factories”.

To suggest that the format of the Mass had anything to do with the rejection of the Church in Quebec is what is naive. It was merely coincidental that the Quiet Revolution started roughly at the same time as Vatican II.

 

[Ockham]

I’m familiar with the Quiet Revolution. I’m also familiar with the argument that the Novus Ordo has produced no negative affects on the Church. You are entitled to it but it is still flawed. On this we’ll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Greg57]

There are some days where I want to go to an ef mass so bad it hurts (especially when I’m listening to the horrible music at a typical mass) but I really think this separation of EF and OF is at best a temporary solution. As much as pope benedict says they are two forms of the same rite, I can’t help but disagree (ever so slightly, and of course, respectfully) mainly because the EF and OF have different calendars.

I also think that traditionalists tend to ghettoize themselves by only attending EF masses (not to mention the rampant craziness which drives people like myself away).

I think a lot of the problems with the OF can be solved by treating it in light of the older mass (as well as the eastern liturgies), that is, approaching it, and thus presenting it, with the same attitude of awe and reverence. While I think legitimate complaints can be made on the basis that the OF rubrics are too “malleable”, I think this might serve a good purpose instead of a bad one.

Having said all this, if I were a pastor (or better yet a bishop) Here’s what I’d do

-communion by intinction, so everyone must receive on the tungue.

-more liberal use of incense (as i understand, teh EF actually restricts its use to certain occasions, but the OF allows it in all cases) I would actually use it at all times like the eastern rites.

-chanting the WHOLE mass (again like the eastern rites). Notice that i’m freely borrowing elements from other traditions, but traditions with a correct view of the purpose of liturgy. It would be cool if we could chant the readings as well. I saw that on a good friday liturgy in Rome this past Easter.

-ad orientum (that goes without saying)

-as for music, I may go so far as to ban ALL instruments, just so there’s as little room as possible for craziness.

-servers and EMHCS. Maybe I could ban both boys and girls and just do it all myself altogether. that way I’m not accused of leaving the girls out. (although i might be accused of lots of other things)

-Latin latin and more latin (although I think doing it in the vernacular has benefits as well)

You didn’t say anything less than what Vatican II suggested.

 

[OraLabora]

I’m familiar with the Quiet Revolution. I’m also familiar with the argument that the Novus Ordo has produced no negative affects on the Church. You are entitled to it but it is still flawed. On this we’ll have to agree to disagree.

I never said that the reform of the Mass had no negative effects on the Church. I said it was not a factor in the Quebec situation.

I did say that it was wrong to suggest that a reverential OF Mass was impossible. That is simply not the case.

IMHO the issue is not the OF Mass. It is too much latitude in selecting appropriate music, which should always be from the Propers and Kyriale, and too much latitude in discipline. The Church opened the door a crack, and thousands of people with agendas and axes to grind proceeded to kick it down.

 

[malphono]

I did say that it was wrong to suggest that a reverential OF Mass was impossible. That is simply not the case.

It’s definitely not impossible, but it’s also exceedingly rare.

IMHO the issue is not the OF Mass. It is too much latitude in selecting appropriate music, which should always be from the Propers and Kyriale, and too much latitude in discipline. The Church opened the door a crack, and thousands of people with agendas and axes to grind proceeded to kick it down.

Ah yes, very true. And it brings us back to one my pet peeves: that lethal combination of built-in “options” and the dearth of rubrics, both of which characterize the OF.

 

[Ockham]

I never said that the reform of the Mass had no negative effects on the Church. I said it was not a factor in the Quebec situation.

I did say that it was wrong to suggest that a reverential OF Mass was impossible. That is simply not the case.

IMHO the issue is not the OF Mass. It is too much latitude in selecting appropriate music, which should always be from the Propers and Kyriale, and too much latitude in discipline. The Church opened the door a crack, and thousands of people with agendas and axes to grind proceeded to kick it down.

I guess the next forty years will shed some light on the situation. If people return to the Church via the EF or a proper OF that should indicate the opposites in fact did have a negative affect.

I agree with your observation about the door. The analogy of V2 opening a window and the smoke of Satan blowing in works too.

 

[PJM]

There are some days where I want to go to an ef mass so bad it hurts (especially when I’m listening to the horrible music at a typical mass) but I really think this separation of EF and OF is at best a temporary solution. As much as pope benedict says they are two forms of the same rite, I can’t help but disagree (ever so slightly, and of course, respectfully) mainly because the EF and OF have different calendars.

I also think that traditionalists tend to ghettoize themselves by only attending EF masses (not to mention the rampant craziness which drives people like myself away).

**I think a lot of the problems with the OF can be solved by treating it in light of the older mass (as well as the eastern liturgies), that is, approaching it, and thus presenting it, with the same attitude of awe and reverence. While I think legitimate complaints can be made on the basis that the OF rubrics are too “malleable”, I think this might serve a good purpose instead of a bad one. **

Having said all this, if I were a pastor (or better yet a bishop) Here’s what I’d do

-communion by intinction, so everyone must receive on the tungue.

-more liberal use of incense (as i understand, teh EF actually restricts its use to certain occasions, but the OF allows it in all cases) I would actually use it at all times like the eastern rites.

-chanting the WHOLE mass (again like the eastern rites). Notice that i’m freely borrowing elements from other traditions, but traditions with a correct view of the purpose of liturgy. It would be cool if we could chant the readings as well. I saw that on a good friday liturgy in Rome this past Easter.

-ad orientum (that goes without saying)

-as for music, I may go so far as to ban ALL instruments, just so there’s as little room as possible for craziness.

-servers and EMHCS. Maybe I could ban both boys and girls and just do it all myself altogether. that way I’m not accused of leaving the girls out. (although i might be accused of lots of other things)

-Latin latin and more latin (although I think doing it in the vernacular has benefits as well)

***My dear friend in Christ,

This can never be because of the priest facing the people [literraly ON STAGE]

And becaue of the completely unecessary use of lay folk in sooooooo many positions that ought to belong to the Ordained.

Let’s continue to Pray fo God’s desired solution:thumbsup***:

 

[Gregorianman]

In Quebec the clergy directed just about all of daily life from the number of children one should have (i.e. as many as a woman’s body could stand), to who one could vote for:

“tomorrow is election day, and I remind all parishioners that it is their civic duty to vote according to their conscience, but remember: heaven is blue (Union Nationale), and hell is red (Liberal)”

The issue of borderline Jansenism has to do with the clergy’s belief that all of us were depraved, and thus had to be very strictly controlled.

The policies of very large families, while it permitted the survival of the the French Canadian race, also guaranteed that they would be kept poor and subservient, economically, to the English masters.

The stranglehold was such that Quebecers, in the “Quiet Revolution” of the '60s, deserted the Church in droves in rebellion; women in particular resented being the Church’s “baby factories”.

To suggest that the format of the Mass had anything to do with the rejection of the Church in Quebec is what is naive. It was merely coincidental that the Quiet Revolution started roughly at the same time as Vatican II.

I don’t believe in coincidence.

 

[Gregorianman]

***My dear friend in Christ,

This can never be because of the priest facing the people [literraly ON STAGE]

And becaue of the completely unecessary use of lay folk in sooooooo many positions that ought to belong to the Ordained.

Let’s continue to Pray fo God’s desired solution:thumbsup***:

 

[MarkThompson]

***My dear friend in Christ,

This can never be because of the priest facing the people [literraly ON STAGE]***

Christ faced the onlookers when he was hung from the Cross. Was he on stage?

Or which stage to you mean, exactly; a raised sanctuary? Pretty sure they have those in both forms of the Mass. Or are you saying it can “never be” because the OF requires that the priest face the people and the EF forbids it? I’m pretty sure you’d be wrong on both counts.

And, last, just to check, do you mean more on stage, and facing more people, than this?–

http://blog.siena.org/uploaded_images/Vatican-Christmas-Eve-Mass,-1944-706912.jpg

Because that was in 1944.

 

[Ockham]

Christ faced the onlookers when he was hung from the Cross. Was he on stage?

That’s cheap.

Are you not familiar with the liturgical purpose of ad orientum? That’s what’s being discussed here, not whether Christ was crucified facing the Cross.

 

[PJM]

=MarkThompson;6908414]Christ faced the onlookers when he was hung from the Cross. Was he on stage?

Or which stage to you mean, exactly; a raised sanctuary? Pretty sure they have those in both forms of the Mass. Or are you saying it can “never be” because the OF requires that the priest face the people and the EF forbids it? I’m pretty sure you’d be wrong on both counts.

And, last, just to check, do you mean more on stage, and facing more people, than this?–

http://blog.siena.org/uploaded_images/Vatican-Christmas-Eve-Mass,-1944-706912.jpg

Because that was in 1944.

Hi Mark,

Nice attempt to change the meaning of my very valid comments.

For one to assume that any Ordained saying Mass facing the congregation with the same degree of God centered focus; is to not understand human nature. It may not be impossible; it is certainly HIGHLY unlikey.

And I noticed no remark on the second point. Excessive and completely unnnecessary use of the laity usurping the proper role of the Ordained.

What is: IS, and what should be ought to be seems to me; obvious. The dooms day results of this GRAND??? Experiment are clearly evident. Current Mass attendence is at an alltime Low for the CC in America. About 25% verses what it was in 1970 about 75%.

Gods Continued Blessing my friend,
Pat

 

[MarkThompson]

That’s cheap.

Are you not familiar with the liturgical purpose of ad orientum? That’s what’s being discussed here, not whether Christ was crucified facing the Cross.

As far as I know, the “liturgical purpose” of ad orientem is not so that the priest is not “on show.” I mean, he’s on a raised platform in front of a group of people, with a retinue of attendants, and maybe he even entered the church in a 30-foot-long cape. The liturgical purpose is that the priest and the people are facing the same way, though it may be a nice side benefit if it makes him feel less like he’s on show.

As to whether what I said was “cheap,” I was responding to the claim that in versus populum worship the priest is “literally” on stage. Was that a slip, and he meant “figuratively,” because he’s facing the people and interacting with them? Then that’s a pretty stretched figurative meaning that applies to practically any situation where someone is facing and interacting with a group, and it’s neither respectful nor helpful to decry that as being a “stage” performance. Or was it actually correctly phrased? Then what’s the literal stage, the sanctuary?

Hi Mark,

Nice attempt to change the meaning of my very valid comments.

For one to assume that any Ordained saying Mass facing the congregation with the same degree of God centered focus; is to not understand human nature. It may not be impossible; it is certainly HIGHLY unlikey.

And I noticed no remark on the second point. Excessive and completely unnnecessary use of the laity usurping the proper role of the Ordained.

First off, it’s entirely possible to say the OF ad orientem, so your claim that the “traditionalization” of the OF “can never be because of the priest facing the people,” unfortunately, falls rather flat.

And although over-delegation is not “usurpation,” I agree with you that it would be nice to see more roles in the liturgy kept to the ordained (and to those seeking major orders).

 

[Layman]

http://blog.siena.org/uploaded_images/Vatican-Christmas-Eve-Mass,-1944-706912.jpg

Because that was in 1944.

Is that St. Peter’s Basilica? If so, it’s often used to excuse Versus Populum. Except I’ve heard that celebrants, while facing the people there, are also facing East.

Even if not, using it is another example of ‘the exception becoming the rule’ in the Novus Ordo i.e. If it was ever done, anywhere, at any time, in any rite of the Catholic Church, that’s excuse enough to shoehorn it in, now, into the Roman Catholic Rite.

 

[MarkThompson]

Is that St. Peter’s Basilica? If so, it’s often used to excuse Versus Populum. Except I’ve heard that celebrants, while facing the people there, are also facing East.

Even if not, using it is another example of ‘the exception becoming the rule’ in the Novus Ordo i.e. If it was ever done, anywhere, at any time, in any rite of the Catholic Church, that’s excuse enough to shoehorn it in, now, into the Roman Catholic Rite.

Yes, that’s St. Peter’s; the view is from the north transept. My point is, if the great liturgical concern of our age is that the priest should not be “on stage,” how are we to evaluate an image like that? Is this a case of, “Yes, that’s a horrible example to set, it’s a shame that it’s spread”? Or is being on a raised platform, facing the nave, surrounded on all sides by the congregation, not a case of being on stage? (Personally, I think it’s not, and that the comparison is borderline offensive.) By the way, the arrangement is the same at St. John Lateran. How many patriarchal archbasilicas does one have to name before the old “Don’t give me counterexamples, it’s just not to be done!” goes away?

Personally, I prefer ad orientem worship. But the notion, stated above, that the insurmountable difficulty with making the Ordinary Form reverent is that the priest is “on stage” seems to me to fail on the grounds that (1) being “on stage” in some physical sense need not make the Mass irreverent at all, and (2) the OF need not be celebrated versus populum in the first place.

 

[Ockham]

Personally, I prefer ad orientem worship. But the notion, stated above, that the insurmountable difficulty with making the Ordinary Form reverent is that the priest is “on stage” seems to me to fail on the grounds that (1) being “on stage” in some physical sense need not make the Mass irreverent at all, and (2) the OF need not be celebrated versus populum in the first place.

I think Cardinal Ratzinger said ad populus was facing the audience although I can’t find the quote right now. When the liturgy becomes performance and in a communal meal, the original intent and inevitably reverence is lost.

 

[OraLabora]

“Ad orientem” means nothing more than “towards the East”. In the case of St. Peters it happens that ad orientem is also versus populum.

It would seem therefore that the issue is not “ad orientem” vs. “versus populum”, it is making “versus populum” prevail over “ad orientem” in all cases, instead of the other way around.

It is a legitimate liturgical debate and an important tradition to observe, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that if ad orientem is the prevailing norm, then a Mass “versus populum” is perfectly licit even in the EF, if that also coincides with facing east.

At least in churches where it is possible to face east. Is there some kind of de facto “liturgical east” in churches that aren’t aligned east-west?

 

[Victorious]

There may be a place for the simplified OF liturgy as an introduction to the Mass for converts, during the Saturday vigil.

I must disagree with that. I think the way to gain converts is to present would-be Catholics with a clear choice between what they have now and what they could have if they joined us. Besides which, I think the EF Mass is clearly superior as a means of instruction in the faith. I learn more truths of the Faith from one EF Mass than I learned in 12 years of Catholic school.

Have you even stopped to consider what this “messing around” does to confuse and disrupt the prayer of those who don’t grasp what is going on with the rubricvs proper to the OF Mass they are attending. Self righteousness never trumps the proper way of doing things by the book.

That’s why, when necessary changes are made, first there must be catechesis.

Hee hee! Am I the only one who sees the absurdity of trying to tradtionalise the N.O.? The N.O. was the answer to those who wanted to modernise the TLM! That’s what it’s for! That’s it’s raison d’etre!

Perhaps the Holy Spirit gave us the Novus Ordo to protect the TLM from the rebellious and disobedient Age of Aquarius generation.

I think these two comments go together. Let’s not kid ourselves: the Novus Ordo was a frontal assault on the Mass. It had many opponents when it first saw the light of day, though, as we know, these did not prevail. I think it was the culmination of a modernist trend that had been ongoing for a good many years in the Church. It was put together by people who wanted to be rid of the Tridentine Mass. Incalculable damage has followed in its wake. The damage has been so profound that we don’t even realize we’ve been damaged. I’ll pay my obligatory tribute to the validity of the Novus Ordo – because, thankfully, God did not permit us to lose the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass altogether – but its effects have been undeniable. (See, e.g., the latest episode of C.I.A. on realcatholictv.com on this very subject.)

And yet…we have reasons to be grateful for the Novus Ordo. God can make good come out of anything, and He often permits evils in order to bring greater good out of them. He did not permit the abrogation of the old rite (though this very nearly did happen). But since the old rite was put on a shelf, it was kept out of the hands of the modernists. Imagine if the modernists had gotten their hands on the TLM: what alternatives would we then have had? But as it happened, they had the Novus Ordo to tinker with, and all we had to do was take the perfectly preserved TLM off the shelf, as Pope Benedict has done.

By the way, to get back to the modernism that had been infesting the Church for years and years before the Novus Ordo came on the scene, a comment that Alice von Hildebrand made in a interviewLatin Mass Magazine: that for years, Catholics had lost a sense of the supernatural, but, until the Second Vatican Council, this phenomenon had been masked by the beauty and the sacredness of the Tridentine liturgy. Well, four decades ago, God allowed the mask to be torn off. He allowed us to see what has been lurking underneath the surface, and it’s ugly. But until we had our illusions about our spiritual health destroyed, and had the rot and maggots put right in front of our faces, we couldn’t embark on a cure.

 

[Layman]

Personally, I prefer ad orientem worship. But the notion, stated above, that the insurmountable difficulty with making the Ordinary Form reverent is that the priest is “on stage” seems to me to fail on the grounds that (1) being “on stage” in some physical sense need not make the Mass irreverent at all, and (2) the OF need not be celebrated versus populum in the first place.

Versus populum,
CITH;
Lay readers, in street clothes,
Gut the text,
Altar table instead of high altar;
Say it in the local lingo;
Remove the altar rails;
et cetera, et cetera …

… and thus the trick is done. One item above wouldn’t be too bad, but cumulatively? Disaster!

You have a mundane mystical rite. An attempt to square the circle, which can’t be done. Result: anguish.

Except for the Devil. I imagine he’s having a good laugh at how the Church has sabotaged itself.