What if a new liturgy was made that was more "Catholic" than the EF?

[Saint_Gemma]

Can any of the traditionalists here cite “developments” in the 1962 missal that were improvements over past missals?

I personally prefer the 1955 missal or earlier, because in 1962 Saint Joseph was added to the Canon, and the second Confeitor was eliminated, and in 1961 the word “faithless” was struck from the Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews. On Good Friday in 1962 the conversion of all Jews was prayed for, instead of just the conversion of faithless, i.e. non-Catholic, Jews. I think that the 1955 missal is better than the 1962 missal, but since I do not know of any non-schismatic churches near me that celebrate the 1955 version of the Roman Rite, I attend that 2008 (1962 with the new Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews) version of the Roman Rite.

 

[SJP]

Can any of the traditionalists here cite “developments” in the 1962 missal that were improvements over past missals?

By about the tenth or eleventh century the Roman Mass was practically the only one in use in the West. Then a few additions (none of them very important) were made to the Mass at different times. The Nicene Creed is an importation from Constantinople. It is said that in 1014 Emperor Henry II (1002-24) persuaded Pope Benedict VIII (1012-24) to add it after the Gospel (Berno of Reichenau, “De quibusdam rebus ad Missæ offic,pertin.”, ii), It had already been adopted in Spain, Gaul, and Germany. All the present ritual and the prayers said by the celebrant at the Offertory were introduced from France about the thirteenth century (“Ordo Rom. XIV”, liii, is the first witness; P. L., LXXVIII, 1163-4); before that the secrets were the only Offertory prayers (“Micrologus”, xi, in P.L., CLI, 984). There was considerable variety as to these prayers throughout the Middle Ages until the revised Missal of Pius V (1570). The incensing of persons and things is again due to Gallican influence; It was not adopted at Rome till the eleventh or twelfth century (Micrologus, ix). Before that time incense was burned only during processions (the entrance and Gospel procession; see C. Atchley, “Ordo Rom. Primus”, 17-18). The three prayers said by the celebrant before his communion are private devotions introduced gradually into the official text. Durandus (thirteenth century, “Rationale,” IV, liii) mentions the first (for peace); the Sarum Rite had instead another prayer addressed to God the Father (“Deus Pater fons et origo totius bonitatis,” ed. Burntisland, 625). Micrologus mentions only the second (D. I. Chr. qui ex voluntate Patris), but says that many other private prayers were said at this place (xviii). Here too there was great diversity through the Middle Ages till Pius V’s Missal. The latest additions to the Mass are its present beginning and end. The psalm “Iudica me”, the Confession, and the other prayers said at the foot of the altar, are all part of the celebrant’s preparation, once said (with many other psalms and prayers) in the sacristy, as the “Præparatio ad Missam” in the Missal now is. There was great diversity as to this preparation till Pius V established our modern rule of saying so much only before the altar. In the same way all that follows the “Ite missa est” is an afterthought, part of the thanksgiving, not formally admitted till Pius V.

Link: newadvent.org/cathen/09790b.htm

I will discuss why these were improvements in future posts.

 

[ethelzguy]

No, we Traditionalists appreciate organic development. See for yourself:

Cardinal Ratzinger in the Preface to The Organic Development of the Liturgy by Alcuin Reid:

Ok, then…give me some examples of how this so-called “organic development” might take place in today’s church with the current internet watchdogs out there?

 

[ethelzguy]

Good point, but I think we can see these claims are false even in regard to practicing Catholics. To use a whisky analogy, it would seem to me that saying most catholics prefer the OF over the EF would be akin to saying that most people who drink Laphroaig prefer the common 10 year expression over the very rare 30 year. The 10 year is in every local liquor store, and the 30 is in none. I have never seen a bottle and have never tasted it. So, statistically, I and everyone else must prefer the 10 year old. Bogus logic.

I can tell you that I have never been given the opportunity to attend an EF Mass, and I would guess that most are in the same boat. How can anyone really say what people even prefer at all unless you first allow everyone to form an opinion?

Nice analogy, but there are thousands, if not millions of Catholics still out there who grew up with the old Latin Mass, who have absolutely NO desire whatsover…NONE…to go back to it.

Further, if you look around you at Mass on Sunday, I suspect that a significant majority of your fellow attendees are the over-50 crowd who did grow up with it and still remember it. But, how many of them want it back?

Back during prohibition, there was some awesome moonshine out there that would knock you on your keester too…but I don’t see much clamor to go back to those days either.

 

[cothrige]

Nice analogy, but there are thousands, if not millions of Catholics still out there who grew up with the old Latin Mass, who have absolutely NO desire whatsover…NONE…to go back to it.

Really? Care to share how you know this for certain? Or are you simply claiming this because it reflects your obvious preference?

Further, if you look around you at Mass on Sunday, I suspect that a significant majority of your fellow attendees are the over-50 crowd who did grow up with it and still remember it. But, how many of them want it back?

Back during prohibition, there was some awesome moonshine out there that would knock you on your keester too…but I don’t see much clamor to go back to those days either.

Significant majority? Hardly, but what difference would it make anyway? Who cares how many people over fifty are in any given Mass? You obviously cannot make any case about what they do or don’t like just by their age, and so it matters not a bit. And does their number somehow mean that people who have not had the opportunity to attend the EF Mass don’t count? Are you saying the Church is a democracy and the majority chooses the form of the Mass the Church allows to be used?

Clearly people such as yourself are making some kind of a claim that more people prefer the OF than do the EF. The only possible statistic you can use to base that on though is by saying that more people attend the OF than do the EF, however that is a false claim when you consider the whole set of facts. For example, in this city, and diocese for that matter, approximately 100% of people “choose” the OF every week. But, how can they do otherwise since there are no EF Masses offered, and there will as far as I can tell continue to be none offered in the future? That is not a foundation for any kind of argument, though again, relative popularity seems meaningless anyway.

And this makes me wonder. How much emphasis are you trying to put on the relative popularity of a form of liturgy? Are you suggesting that the supposed greater popularity of the OF (a fact yet to proven by the way) means that the EF is superfluous? Should we not seek to have it available? Should people not wish to attend it? Should they not try to convince their bishops and pastors to make it more readily available? If so, does that mean we should force all the Eastern Catholics to move over to the Latin rite and close their parishes? What about the Anglican use parishes? They are miniscule in numbers, and how many Catholics do you know fighting to have an Anglican liturgy? Are you trying to say that only the number one liturgy should rule the day and all others who are devoted or participate in other forms are in error and should be moved to your way of worshiping? Just what does it even mean to you?

 

[Saint_Gemma]

**Nice analogy, but there are thousands, if not millions of Catholics still out there who grew up with the old Latin Mass, who have absolutely NO desire whatsover…NONE…to go back to it.
**
Further, if you look around you at Mass on Sunday, I suspect that a significant majority of your fellow attendees are the over-50 crowd who did grow up with it and still remember it. But, how many of them want it back?

Back during prohibition, there was some awesome moonshine out there that would knock you on your keester too…but I don’t see much clamor to go back to those days either.

How do know whether or not they want the EF to become the OF? Have you asked every Catholic old enough to remember what Masses in 1962 were like, or at least a respectably sized representative sample of those Catholics?

Even if you had asked everyone old enough to remember it, and most of them said that they preferred the OF, that still would not mean that a majority of them would not have preferred the EF if they had not been told for years that the only people who prefer the it were sedevacantists, schismatics, and old people who were nostalgic for the days of their youth. The pastor of my home parish said in the parish newsletter that the pope issued only issued Summorum Pontificum to make SSPX happy, as if no one else (such as the man who issued Summorum Pontificum ) preferred the EF!

 

[Saint_Gemma]

Nice analogy, but there are thousands, if not millions of Catholics still out there who grew up with the old Latin Mass, who have absolutely NO desire whatsover…NONE…to go back to it.

**Further, if you look around you at Mass on Sunday, I suspect that a significant majority of your fellow attendees are the over-50 crowd who did grow up with it and still remember it. But, how many of them want it back?
**
Back during prohibition, there was some awesome moonshine out there that would knock you on your keester too…but I don’t see much clamor to go back to those days either.

Most of the people at the EF Masses that I have attended never attended the EF when it was the OF, including the priest! On the other hand, most of the people at the folk music OF Masses that I have attended were old enough to be my grandparents!

 

[eelpis]

Ok, then…give me some examples of how this so-called “organic development” might take place in today’s church with the current internet watchdogs out there?

LOL, it does however in spite of the watchdogs.

 

[bpbasilphx]

It’s the most ancient and venerable rite in Christendom.

**And what are the Divine Liturgies of St. James, St. Basil, St, John Chrysostom, and especially of the Holy Apostles Addai and Mari? Chopped liver?

They are ALL much older even than the EF.

No traditional Eucharistic Liturgy is more “venerable” than the next. ALL are equal.**

 

[bpbasilphx]

The Roman rite is more ancient than any of the eastern liturgies.
At least that is what Jungmann and other lit. historians say.

Jungmann is not the last, much less the only, word in liturgical scholarship and hisbory.

 

[eelpis]

It’s the most ancient and venerable rite in Christendom.

**And what are the Divine Liturgies of St. James, St. Basil, St, John Chrysostom, and especially of the Holy Apostles Addai and Mari? Chopped liver?

They are ALL much older even than the EF.

No traditional Eucharistic Liturgy is more “venerable” than the next. ALL are equal.**

Of course there are other venerable rites in Holy Church.

The Roman rite is the most ancient however. It’s the Liturgy of St Peter.

 

[bpbasilphx]

The Roman rite is the most ancient however. It’s the Liturgy of St Peter.

**There you go again, repeating something you claim you did not say.

The Church was in Jerusalem before it ever went to Rome, and the Liturgy of St. James was dictated by Our Lord Himself to his half-brother James. Now what?**

 

[ethelzguy]

Really? Care to share how you know this for certain? Or are you simply claiming this because it reflects your obvious preference?

Do you actually mingle with others in your parish? Or, do you judge the Church by what you read at CAF? I’ve had 40+ years of chit-chat among fellow parishoners from which to draw my opinions.

And does their number somehow mean that people who have not had the opportunity to attend the EF Mass don’t count?

I’m saying that many of us spent decades attending Latin Masses, and have no interest in returning to such.

Clearly people such as yourself are making some kind of a claim that more people prefer the OF than do the EF. The only possible statistic you can use to base that on though is by saying that more people attend the OF than do the EF,

**
See above responses. Your analogy here is cute but irrelevant.**

And this makes me wonder. How much emphasis are you trying to put on the relative popularity of a form of liturgy? Are you suggesting that the supposed greater popularity of the OF (a fact yet to proven by the way) means that the EF is superfluous?

Most of the people I talk to, in all age groups feel that Latin in Mass is something of a novelty.

 

[eelpis]

The Roman rite is the most ancient however. It’s the Liturgy of St Peter.

**There you go again, repeating something you claim you did not say.

The Church was in Jerusalem before it ever went to Rome, and the Liturgy of St. James was dictated by Our Lord Himself to his half-brother James. Now what?**

If I remember it right St Peter was not a Roman

As it was dictated by our Lord Himself to St Peter, the Prince of the Apostles and his Vicar.

 

[eelpis]

I really have a hard time to understand why people attack the EF.

What do you get out of it? To me it seems diabolical.

 

[cothrige]

Do you actually mingle with others in your parish? Or, do you judge the Church by what you read at CAF? I’ve had 40+ years of chit-chat among fellow parishoners from which to draw my opinions.

Yep, I do. But what does it prove? Nothing. I can only attest that those I have spoken to about this particular subject state a preference in this or that way when I happen to speak to them about it. In other words, it is meaningless. Of course, I am not the one claiming to be able to state with absolute certainty what every person in the Church thinks about a given issue.

And, of course as I have already said, none of it matters in the first place as the liturgy is neither democratic nor is it a popularity contest. The Church has unequivocally stated that the EF is valid and should be made available. That is not the opinion of the posters at this forum, or the people in my parish or yours. It is directly from the Holy See. If you argue against that because you think all the people of a certain age group feel that way then you are defending an uncatholic model of the Church, completely exaggerating your personal knowledge and apparently engaging in dissent.

I’m saying that many of us spent decades attending Latin Masses, and have no interest in returning to such.

Good, then don’t go to them. And, since you are interested in that kind of thing, I know people who grew up with the vernacular Mass and have no interest in returning to one of any kind. What do you make of that?

See above responses. Your analogy here is cute but irrelevant.

I didn’t see any analogy above this. Did you quote the wrong section? I merely objected to a situation wherein people are effectively forbidden from attending an EF Mass, and then their failure to attend such is used as evidence that they didn’t want to go. I hardly think that is analogical at all.

Most of the people I talk to, in all age groups feel that Latin in Mass is something of a novelty.

Really? Just who is saying that the liturgy of the Church for well over 1000 years of its history was a novelty? I hope you set them straight about that. I don’t think any of the saints who worshiped in that Mass would categorize it as such.

Again, though, I am curious. Where do you go with this stuff? You say the EF Mass is hated. It is opposed by all, especially those over fifty. You said nobody wants to return to it. You say they believe it is a mere novelty. But, what does any of that mean? Again I say that most people baptized as Catholics think the entire faith is a novelty. They think the Church is irrelevant. They think prayer is pointless, and that God is dead. And what would you have of it? Don’t you see, you are outvoted. Why do you hold onto this silly novelty of the Church at all? Why do you attend the Masses of this misogynistic organization which has persecuted millions throughout history, burned women, hated science and reason and generally insisted that all mankind should be subject to the whims of dirty old men with very cute young menservants? Why do you pursue this democratic model of Church?

 

[ethelzguy]

I really have a hard time to understand why people attack the EF.

What do you get out of it? To me it seems diabolical.

Actually, if you look more closely, most of it is in response to the TLM crowd inciting NO bashing, and we obedient Catholics feel obligated to defend and respond.

 

[ProVobis]

1,000 years from now will the EF be word for word exactly the same as it is today?

Who’d want that? I only hope the words of Consecration don’t change.

 

[ProVobis]

Nope, you can’t have “gradual developments” anymore, not with the liturgical police out every weekend searching for anything different that they can call “abuse” and posting photos and YouTube videos on forums.

Who’s searching for anything different? Personally I find these kinds of things boring:

reluctantoptimist.wordpress.com/2008/05/24/some-catholics-are-just-plain-weird/

 

[ProVobis]

To say that most Catholics prefer the OF anyday is hogwash, most Catholics don’t attend mass at all. And a lot of those who attend on Sundays do so because they know about the Sunday obligation.

Good point. But even those that do know about the Sunday obligation wouldn’t make the effort.