What the Pope is aiming at is to get to a unique rite that would have both qualities of the ordinaria and extraordinaria. I don’t know how this is going to take place, but that’s his aim. I dunno what Missal he’d chose for such.
I think you make a very good point here. And based on my understanding of this document, so far, I think the Pope agrees, other wise why would he have said this
and I, for one, would love it if they translated the EF into English, but I also respect the opinion that it should be in Latin.
I do not presume to speak for ConstantineTG, but I think the kind of “organic development” he is talking about is exactly what the pope did with the above statement.
That’s interesting stuff. Thanks for sharing that… how the UE affects the Mendicant Orders. I wish more of this info were discussed on the various blogs along with the focus on bishops opinions and so forth.That’s a very good summary.
These articles answer many questions that the faithful, the bishops, the priests and the religious superiors had.
I know that in my community the big question was whether or not our ordained brothers needed permission to celebrate the EF when there is no congregation. It was always clear that they need permission to celebrate mass at all. They need permission to celebrate the EF for the faithful. This point was unclear in SP. The few men that do celebrate the EF were asking for permission, just in case. This way they would not end up celebrating an illicit mass. They usually do not have to ask for permission to celebrate mass. Most superiors just give a blanket permission. But the superior does reserve the right to restrict the ordained, if it’s for the good of the community, because they’re expected to concelebrate, if they don’t have a good reason to celebrate mass alone or to sit in the pews with the other brothers. If a man is making himself absent too often, because he wants to celebrate the EF and the community does not have a daily EF, then the superior can step in stop it. What he’s stopping is the isolation, not the EF. This was a point that was not clear until today.
The same applies to the use of the 1962 breviary. It can only be used if the superior of the house approves it, because the entire house has to pray together. Now that it is clear that the breviary can be used, it’s up to the local superior to approve its use in his house. My guess is that Provincial Superiors and General Superiors may require that they be asked first. They may not like the idea of one house doing things differently, because religious come and go. Not a year goes by when someone is not transferred. The bigger the community, the more likely to have many transfers. You almost have to lock everyone into one breviary and one missal.
For the superiors of large orders, this is going to be a balancing act. I’m so glad that I was already a superior and can’t be elected again for at least 12 years. By that time I’ll be either dead or too old.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Well, the EF isn’t a “dead liturgy” as is. And there is no need to use such a label. I wasn’t the only one offended by it either. Those who don’t assist the EF, or desire to, may not understand.I do not presume to speak for ConstantineTG, but I think the kind of “organic development” he is talking about is exactly what the pope did with the above statement.
Do you believe him to be “tinkering” with your liturgy?
It’s already translated into English. And many other languages. It’s just not said in them.
It’s only okay to follow in English or any other language but only the Latin text is used for actual liturgy with the priest strongly urged to explain it at the sermon or outside Mass.
A couple of possible reasons off the top of my head.
I know you know this so I just hope it is a bad choice of words rather then an attempt at something else.
It’s actually not a puzzle at all, at least if you’ve ever read Sacrosanctum Concilium or virtually anything that was written about the liturgy circa Vatican II or the preceding 50 years. Among other things, they wanted “more reading from holy scripture, and it is to be more varied and suitable,” provision for more “legitimate variations and adaptations to different groups, regions, and peoples” so as not to “impose a rigid uniformity,” fewer silent things so that “Christ’s faithful, when present at this mystery of faith, should not be there as strangers or silent spectators,” the elimination of “elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage,” the restoration of the bidding prayers, the expansion of concelebration, and a whole host of other things.
Everything that you say is very true. One also has to remember that by the time that Vatican II rolls around the number of secular priests in the Latin Church has become the dominant population. There was also the desire to take some of the monastic flavor out of the celebration of the mass and place the focus on three points: Word, Eucharist and Priesthood.
Actually, that looks like a laundry list to ‘do what you like’ with a Mass.
I never thought about it before, but your comment regarding wanting a rite which will inspire religious awe and wanting it to be folky at the same time makes some sense. One of the main reasons I like the EF is because I don’t have to work very hard to be in a state of awe (and great reverence for God); whereas in the OF, I just have to work a little harder to be in that state of presence. I quite like the OF, but prefer the uber-reverence of the EF. I just think that God deserves uber-reverence, given all that He has done for us, and continues to do. I think, too, that the EF places more emphasis on ‘sin,’ which may make some people uncomfortable. But being reminded that we’re sinners isn’t a bad thing, as long as it doesn’t lead to scruples; but that can be dealt with, too, by a good confessor.
Is part of the organic development more participation by the people? In some missals, I see that the “servers” respond, but I find that the people respond with the servers. Is this a change from the pre-Vatican II mass?
Yes and No, Dialogue Masses caught on in areas unaffected by the reformation (basically mainland Europe) which is where the congregation respond with the Servers, however in areas that was heavily affected by the reformation (and hence intense Catholic persecution) they stuck to the Mass of Trent to the letter, in England for example, a Dialogue Mass is very rare due to the ultra-traditional sense of Catholicism in those areas. So yes it was/is a change from the Missal of Trent, but it came from innovations from pre-Vatican II on Mainland Europe.
It is not the goal of the Ordinary Form to be “folksy”. That is a very rude assessment on the part of the previous poster and one that even the Holy Father himself would have trouble accepting. If you look at all of the masses that Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI celebrate for the public, they are all in the Ordinary Form. They are always very reverently celebrated.
Each of us is on a journey. We each find the awesome, the tremendous and the fascinating God through either of the two forms. To say that one form is more conducive than the other is to make a claim that cannot be sustained. The form is more conducive for certain people. Those whose spiritual journey is nurtured should have the access and opportunity to use the Extraordinary Form. Those whose spiritual journey is nurtured in the Ordinary Foirm should not be subjected to hearing that the Ordinary Form is not conducive to reverence and to contemplation. That is simply not universally true. If you visit any of our religious houses where mendicants and monks live, we use the Ordinary Form. I can tell you from my own experience, that when I put up my cowl I’m completely in my little cave. What makes it possible for me to contemplate at mass is the prayers, the silence, the solitude that I experience inside my little cowl. Other monks and friars would tell you that it’s something else. For each of us it’s going to be different.
God certainly deserves the best that we can offer. However, don’t confuse reverence with rubrics, form and choreography. The two forms have different rubrics and when they choreography is done appropriately, they are very beautiful. The reverence is an attitude of the heart. When it’s present in the heart, regardless of which form one is using,the choreography is going to reflect that reverence. Watch a mass on EWTN. It’s the Ordinary Form.
That is not part of the form itself. That is up to the individual preacher. You will find preachers who handle this subject very well in both forms and some that don’t do a good job at it at all. If you had been at a Franciscan chapel on May 16, we celebrated the Solemnity of St. Margaret of Cortona, a Secular Franciscan who had been a working girl. Father Joseph Mary, MFVA gave a very moving homily on cohabitation. The rest of the Church does not observe this holy day. You would have had a different mass at the local parish or at another religious order.
This is correct to a certain point. Dead languages have stopped evolving. You can’t nuance it any further than the original writers and speakers did. Can it be updated? Yes it can. Is it updated? Yes, all the time. We still use it for official Church documents and when there is a word that did not exist in Latin, we make it up in order to insert it into the document.
Actually, a Catholic should feel comfortable and welcome in any Catholic Church, East or West. What people define as comfortable and welcome varies. It depends a lot of local culture and also on the individual. Some people want too much comfort, if you get my meaning. As to welcome, every Catholic walking into any of the 23 Catholic Churches should be made to feel that he belongs, regardless of his background. If he’s a little lost and confused, he should be helped. This happens more when you cross over from the East to West and West to East. It can happen when you cross from one parish to another.
Many people do not know that the dialog masses in those parts of Europe were an anceint custom that was borrowed from the Franciscans. Franciscans had dialog masses as early as 1221. We had it for one simple reason, equality. In order to make the mass a fraternal celebration and a cult to almightly God at the same time, all the friars responded to the prayers. The prayers were alwasy said aloud. This was transferred from the conventual mass to the parish mass. I’m not sure how or when. This was the form that was given to Pope Pius V and he modified it so that the servers were doing most of the responding. My guess is the he did not trust the laity to know the prayers as well as the friars did or that he did not see the laity having the same need as the friars. The friars were trying to preserve brotherhood. The idea was that the ordain brother served his brothers through the priesthood. He was was one of them, even though he was ordained and most of them were not and even those who were ordained were not allowed to celebrate mass unless Francis gave permission. If you look at it from that point of view, it makes sense that St. Pius would not see the same need in the typical parish.
We like to make things interesting, the Reformation just spiced things up
Thank you Brother, I hadn’t realised that Dialogue Masses were actually a Franciscan Tradition, you really do learn something new every day, this is why we should always refer to our more knowledgeable brothers.Many people do not know that the dialog masses in those parts of Europe were an anceint custom that was borrowed from the Franciscans. Franciscans had dialog masses as early as 1221. We had it for one simple reason, equality. In order to make the mass a fraternal celebration and a cult to almightly God at the same time, all the friars responded to the prayers. The prayers were alwasy said aloud. This was transferred from the conventual mass to the parish mass. I’m not sure how or when. This was the form that was given to Pope Pius V and he modified it so that the servers were doing most of the responding. My guess is the he did not trust the laity to know the prayers as well as the friars did or that he did not see the laity having the same need as the friars. The friars were trying to preserve brotherhood. The idea was that the ordain brother served his brothers through the priesthood. He was was one of them, even though he was ordained and most of them were not and even those who were ordained were not allowed to celebrate mass unless Francis gave permission. If you look at it from that point of view, it makes sense that St. Pius would not see the same need in the typical parish.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
