"traditionalizing" the ordinary form

[Ockham]

Here’s an interesting speech given by Archbishop Lefebvre on this subject. Oh, and please, I realize he ordained bishops without papal approval and all the other stuff. Please keeps comments on his speech and not the other distractions.

*"I wish to speak to you this evening about the evangelical Mass of Martin Luther, and of the striking resemblance between his Liturgical innovations of more than four centuries ago, and the recently promulgated new order of the Mass, the Novus Ordo Missae.

Why are such considerations of significance? Because of the prominent role, according to the President of the Liturgical Commission himself, accorded to the concept of ecumenism in bringing about these reforms. Because, further, if we are able to ascertain that a close relationship does indeed exist between Luther’s innovations and the Novus Ordo, then the theological question, that is the question of the faith, must be asked in terms of the well known adage, “lex orandi, lex credendi”; the law of prayer cannot be profoundly changed without changing the law of belief." *

sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Luthers-Mass.htm

 

[rwoehmke]

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%.

And we are expected to accept this as clear evidence? Rather simplistic conclusion isn’t it? Of course when in need grasp any straw that seems to help prove ones point..

 

[pnewton]

Wouldn’t it be a lot easier to just go to an EF?

Before he was Pope, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that there was no question of going back. Now who nows what will happen in a hundred years, but I will be very surprised if any alive see this, or if indeed it ever happens.

Actually, the topic is reasonable. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see some elements, like ad orientem, returned to the liturgy. This was one idea that Cardinal Ratzinger suggested. Of course, as Pope he has not seen this to be a prudent move yet. I for one do not care one way or another. There is no external element of the Mass that even holds a candle to the miraculous reality of the Holy Sacrifice that occurs. I will happily support whatever the Church does that keeps bringing the Holy Eucharist to me.

 

[Ockham]

Before he was Pope, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that there was no question of going back. Now who nows what will happen in a hundred years, but I will be very surprised if any alive see this, or if indeed it ever happens.

That’s an interesting comment from Cardinal Ratzinger especially considering how he also described the Novus Ordo as a banal fabrication. Perhaps he meant there is no chance of getting rid of the NO (at least anytime soon). As pope he has made great effort to encourage the TLM and traditional practices such as COTT.

 

[CDNowak]

Before he was Pope, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that there was no question of going back. Now who nows what will happen in a hundred years, but I will be very surprised if any alive see this, or if indeed it ever happens.

Actually, the topic is reasonable. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see some elements, like ad orientem, returned to the liturgy. This was one idea that Cardinal Ratzinger suggested. Of course, as Pope he has not seen this to be a prudent move yet. I for one do not care one way or another. There is no external element of the Mass that even holds a candle to the miraculous reality of the Holy Sacrifice that occurs. I will happily support whatever the Church does that keeps bringing the Holy Eucharist to me.

The President of the New Pontifical Council -]suggested by bloggers/-] for Promoting Christian Unity Deals thinks we ought to see some of those changes, based on finally implementing Sacrosanctum Concilium).

While we wait and pray for the “Reform of the Reform” there are many legitimate options that can be exercised for the “Catholicization” of the Reform.

 

[PJM]

=MarkThompson;6908607]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?

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).

**THANKS! I’ll accept your comments in the chritble tone given, but still hold to my position as being common, the norm and valid.

Love and prayers,
Pat**

 

[pnewton]

That’s an interesting comment from Cardinal Ratzinger especially considering how he also described the Novus Ordo as a banal fabrication.

That is the quote that traditionalist trot out from an preface to someone else’s book. I go straight to the source and read what they man wrote for himself. He said the liturgy was like a whitewached fresco that the changes in the Mass cleared away to reveal the vibrant colors beneath. Then he uses this analogy to show how the protect to the fresco has also been removed.

 

[Kerygmatic]

I personally find the Novus Ordo Rite potentially more promising to developing a traditional liturgical witness than the old Tridentine Rite. For one, I like the feel of form four of Novus Ordo. I also like the fact that the Second Vatican Council calls for a return to communion in both species. Would that that be implemented. Indeed, the way EWTN does Novus Ordo is quite appealing. Now if only they have their priests face the right way and not “perform” for the people but lead them in prayer, that would be positive. Communion in both kinds again would be the right way to go. Putting the epiklesis in its right place after the words of consecration. That would make Novus Ordo more legitimate in terms of what the Eucharist should be.

Now omit the filioque and the azymes and restore the Roman Canon a little more fully with the reading of the diptyches and we could be on to something.

Kerygmatic

 

[archangel04]

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.

I have to agree that was cheap comment, and usually I find Mark’s comments informative and interesting.

 

[archangel04]

I personally find the Novus Ordo Rite potentially more promising to developing a traditional liturgical witness than the old Tridentine Rite. For one, I like the feel of form four of Novus Ordo. I also like the fact that the Second Vatican Council calls for a return to communion in both species. Would that that be implemented. Indeed, the way EWTN does Novus Ordo is quite appealing. Now if only they have their priests face the right way and not “perform” for the people but lead them in prayer, that would be positive. Communion in both kinds again would be the right way to go. Putting the epiklesis in its right place after the words of consecration. That would make Novus Ordo more legitimate in terms of what the Eucharist should be.

Now omit the filioque and the azymes and restore the Roman Canon a little more fully with the reading of the diptyches and we could be on to something.
Kerygmatic

While we are at it we might as well remove the Pope as head of the Church and call ourselves the Roman Orthodox Church.

 

[MarkThompson]

I have to agree that was cheap comment, and usually I find Mark’s comments informative and interesting.

Is that so? All I hear on this forum is how the priest acts in persona Christi, and the Mass should be viewed as a re-presentation of Calvary and not as a communal meal. Is it really that “cheap” to consider how the actual person of Christ at the actual Calvary was?

Oh, and by the way, no one’s ever told me – if the priest is the Person of Christ, why shouldn’t the attention in the Mass be focused on him? What’s the big problem? Is there some better place to focus our attention than on Christ?

 

[CDNowak]

Oh, and by the way, no one’s ever told me – if the priest is the Person of Christ, why shouldn’t the attention in the Mass be focused on him? What’s the big problem? Is there some better place to focus our attention than on Christ?

Because when the focus is on the priest it generally is on the priest as a separate person than Christ. If the priest is not facing us, then we are less likely to ‘see’ Fr Joe and his human characteristics and foibles).

 

[archangel04]

Is that so? All I hear on this forum is how the priest acts in persona Christi, and the Mass should be viewed as a re-presentation of Calvary and not as a communal meal. Is it really that “cheap” to consider how the actual person of Christ at the actual Calvary was?

Oh, and by the way, no one’s ever told me – if the priest is the Person of Christ, why shouldn’t the attention in the Mass be focused on him? What’s the big problem? Is there some better place to focus our attention than on Christ?

Hey I don’t have to agree with everything you say regardless of the respect I may have for your previous post on this site. Last time I checked the Eucharis was the main focus of the Mass, the priest may be in Person Chrisi, but the Eucharis is Christ Himself.

 

[MarkThompson]

Because when the focus is on the priest it generally is on the priest as a separate person than Christ. If the priest is not facing us, then we are less likely to ‘see’ Fr Joe and his human characteristics and foibles).

And if Jesus walked into a room, you would ‘see’ his human characteristics. That’s an essential part of the Incarnation, that he became man. Why does it make sense to deny that?

Besides, wouldn’t stand to reason, then, that at least at the moment when the priest’s conduct is inseparable from Christ’s – when he says the words of the Consecration – the congregation ought to be to see and hear it? What’s the argument: “No, if they heard it they’d be too likely to …” what? These are academic questions, really, more than anything else. My point is that if the argument is, “Facing the people means you’re on stage, and that’s inappropriate for the priest at Mass,” that seems to fail in both the sense that it does not mean you’re on stage, and that it was the posture of the actual Christ at the actual Calvary which the priest, in the Person of Christ, is re-presenting.

If the argument is just a prudential one that facing the people might make the priest inclined to get carried away with himself, or what have you, then that’s fine (and I think quite a good reason to favor ad orientem), but let’s not confuse that with a theological reason.

 

[MarkThompson]

Hey I don’t have to agree with everything you say regardless of the respect I may have for your previous post on this site. Last time I checked the Eucharis was the main focus of the Mass, the priest may be in Person Chrisi, but the Eucharis is Christ Himself.

As far as I know (and I’m not some great Eucharistic scholar, so correct me if I’m wrong), the Church’s teaching is that when the priest speaks the words of Institution it is Christ himself who speaks them.

I admit – and this would be hard for anyone else to pick up on, but I like to keep myself entertained – I was poking a bit of fun at the people who insist that Communion must be received from a priest’s hands because the priest acts in persona Christi when he distributes Communion, that type of thing. I’ve read on this board where people say, “I’d be crazy if I didn’t want to receive Christ’s Body from Christ Himself.” Of course that’s balderdash; the joke was just that if you thought he was a walking, talking Christ in everything he did at Mass, you’d darn sure want the focus of the Mass to be on him.

And, anyway, what you say about the people’s focus being on the Eucharist (as Real Christ) rather than the Priest (as a sort of halfway version of Christ?) can only apply after the Consecration has taken place.

 

[archangel04]

As far as I know (and I’m not some great Eucharistic scholar, so correct me if I’m wrong), the Church’s teaching is that when the priest speaks the words of Institution it is Christ himself who speaks them.

I admit – and this would be hard for anyone else to pick up on, but I like to keep myself entertained – I was poking a bit of fun at the people who insist that Communion must be received from a priest’s hands because the priest acts in persona Christi when he distributes Communion, that type of thing. I’ve read on this board where people say, “I’d be crazy if I didn’t want to receive Christ’s Body from Christ Himself.” Of course that’s balderdash; the joke was just that if you thought he was a walking, talking Christ in everything he did at Mass, you’d darn sure want the focus of the Mass to be on him.

And, anyway, what you say about the people’s focus being on the Eucharist (as Real Christ) rather than the Priest (as a sort of halfway version of Christ?) can only apply after the Consecration has taken place.

Wow you do have good memory, I also remember that post on one of the topics of COTT. True, but in my expeirence I would always be distracted by the priest, for example I remember when I was an Altar boy we would kneel in front of the Altar during the Consecration, and there was this one cool pries who looked like an actor, and I would always think “hhmm he really looks like that one guy from that movie” during the consecration Lukily I am older now, but there are some priest out there who have character that can be distracting, someties it’s not thier fault, but I feel ad orientum would “protect” us of these distractions.

 

[MarkThompson]

Wow you do have good memory, I also remember that post on one of the topics of COTT. True, but in my expeirence I would always be distracted by the priest, for example I remember when I was an Altar boy we would kneel in front of the Altar during the Consecration, and there was this one cool pries who looked like an actor, and I would always think “hhmm he really looks like that one guy from that movie” during the consecration Lukily I am older now, but there are some priest out there who have character that can be distracting, someties it’s not thier fault, but I feel ad orientum would “protect” us of these distractions.

These are valid points, no doubt, and I fully agree with you, at least up to a point. What you say leads us to a question: to what extent ought the liturgy to be shaped by concessions to our flaws and baser natures?

I’d draw a comparison to the well-known issue of the “little old ladies all praying the Rosary at Mass before Vatican II.” Obviously it’s not true that everyone was engaged in the Rosary or some other non-liturgical private devotion, but it was a significant enough problem that people commented on it then, people remember it now, and it was seen as one of the factors militating in favor of a more active, participatory liturgy. Is that okay? If I agree with you that the priest should not face the people because folks might get distracted, should I also think that the liturgy should not be mostly silent and, where not silent, in a foreign language, because too many people’s minds might wander or they might choose to occupy themselves with other things?

Put another way, is there some balance between the liturgy (the priest, the responses) being so in-your-face that some people would get distracted from the true meaning and the presence of God, and being so far out of your face that other people have a hard time engaging and participating in the Church’s greatest form of worship? And, if there is such a balance, to what extent ought the liturgy’s form to be determined in subservience to such considerations?

None of these is a particularly easy question, nor, most likely, would it have a one-sentence “zinger” of an answer. That’s why I don’t find “The big problem is that the priest is on stage!” to be a particularly helpful approach.

 

[Kerygmatic]

Roman Orthodox (and Catholic) church is what you were. While the pope in his primacy was never the head of the Church prior to the Schism. He was the Patriarch of the West, first among equals of other Patriarchs. He did have an appelate office, which was more instructive than anything actually bearing force or any sort of magisterium, as the Life of St. Maximos the Confessor indicates. If the current pope and his predecessor affirm the right doctrine and practice of the Orthodox Church, that is a statement of what is Catholic by Roman definition. So why wouldn’t you want to be Orthodox and Roman?

 

[CDNowak]

And if Jesus walked into a room, you would ‘see’ his human characteristics. That’s an essential part of the Incarnation, that he became man. Why does it make sense to deny that?

Jesus wasn’t short with me last week, didn’t laugh at that off color joke, isn’t driving a new car in a parish where no-one else can afford one. These human characteristics, the innumerable petty (or not so petty) failings of the priest certainly do distract people from the Mass.

Besides, wouldn’t stand to reason, then, that at least at the moment when the priest’s conduct is inseparable from Christ’s – when he says the words of the Consecration – the congregation ought to be to see and hear it? What’s the argument: “No, if they heard it they’d be too likely to …” what? These are academic questions, really, more than anything else.//QUOTE]

Not necessarily. Looking at the Temple sacrifices there were parts that (like the Byzantine Rite) were hidden. The Last Supper and Agony were secret (from the Latin~set apart).

“No, if they heard it they’d be too likely to …” think they understood it.

My point is that if the argument is, “Facing the people means you’re on stage, and that’s inappropriate for the priest at Mass,” that seems to fail in both the sense that it does not

mean you’re on stage, and that it was the posture of the actual Christ at the actual Calvary which the priest, in the Person of Christ, is re-presenting.

If the argument is just a prudential one that facing the people might make the priest inclined to get carried away with himself, or what have you, then that’s fine (and I think quite a good reason to favor ad orientem), but let’s not confuse that with a theological reason.

The references to the priest being “on stage” is the practical argument, you set up the straw man of literalism. I shan’t congratulate you for knocking it down.

The theological arguments for ad orientem stem from the ubiquitous notion (still maintained by the other Abrahamaic religions) of turning to face what was most holy, in the case of Christians the Second Coming of Christ symbolized in the dawn. In addition there is the theology of the priest, in persona Christi, offering the sacrifice to the Father on behalf of the people, far more explicit when the priest does not face the people. (I heartily recommend Lang’s “Turning Towards the Lord” on this).

 

[archangel04]

These are valid points, no doubt, and I fully agree with you, at least up to a point. What you say leads us to a question: to what extent ought the liturgy to be shaped by concessions to our flaws and baser natures?

I’d draw a comparison to the well-known issue of the “little old ladies all praying the Rosary at Mass before Vatican II.” Obviously it’s not true that everyone was engaged in the Rosary or some other non-liturgical private devotion, but it was a significant enough problem that people commented on it then, people remember it now, and it was seen as one of the factors militating in favor of a more active, participatory liturgy. Is that okay? If I agree with you that the priest should not face the people because folks might get distracted, should I also think that the liturgy should not be mostly silent and, where not silent, in a foreign language, because too many people’s minds might wander or they might choose to occupy themselves with other things?

Put another way, is there some balance between the liturgy (the priest, the responses) being so in-your-face that some people would get distracted from the true meaning and the presence of God, and being so far out of your face that other people have a hard time engaging and participating in the Church’s greatest form of worship? And, if there is such a balance, to what extent ought the liturgy’s form to be determined in subservience to such considerations?

None of these is a particularly easy question, nor, most likely, would it have a one-sentence “zinger” of an answer. That’s why I don’t find “The big problem is that the priest is on stage!” to be a particularly helpful approach.

True these are some good questions. Notice that in none of my posts have I ever been a proponent of Latin only, although Latin in my opinion should be used epsecially during the Consecration, again my opinion and preference. One thing I’ve notice at the TLM is that during the silent moments, one can get easily be distracted or if tired, very sleepy . The OF allows one to participate in many scared prayers and I have no problem with that, in fact I enjoy that, but it lacks silence and some cases reverence. As humans we tend to be visual creatures, and showing ad orientum (at least during consecrations), incense, bells, and silence shows that the Consecreation and Eucharist are the center high point of the Mass.