Youth and the Extraordinary Form

[floresco]

Well, I have to say, he did just claim that any OF mass that is not ad orientem is deformed. Yes, that is not what was originally planned, but it is hardly something which deforms the Mass.

Cardinal Ratzinger in Spirit of the Liturgy identified the change (not called for by Vatican II) to ad populum as something that demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of the nature of the Mass. I would not be the least surprised if that is one of the things he had in mind as a deformation of liturgy when he wrote about it as Pope.

 

[Esrb99]

I do not deny that correctly done OFs exist but, in my experience, they are not the norm. Depending on where one lives, it might not be practical to attend one. It is not denigrating the OF to face this reality.

Oh, I agree-I completely do. I myself live 100 miles from this Latin NO and from the closest EF, so I understand reality versus ideal.

In regards to determining what a ‘reverent’ NO mass is, I can understand that there are provisions for allowing secular instruments, a variety of musical styles, versus populem, etc. But I think a good line to draw is this: If the priest suddenly turned to the people and said, “dominus vobiscum” and the majority cannot respond “et cum spiritu tuo”, then there’s a problem. Why? Because Sacrosanctum Concillium expressly said that even with the vernacular as an option, the faithful need to know the parts that pertain to them in latin. If they refuse to do so, it could be argued that they are rebelling both against the will of the Holy Father, and against the documents of Vatican II.

 

[thewanderer]

I do not deny that correctly done OFs exist but, in my experience, they are not the norm. Depending on where one lives, it might not be practical to attend one. It is not denigrating the OF to face this reality.

I think whats causing the uproar here is that people have different ideas of what is necessary for the OF to be celebrated correctly. I agree that most places need to return more to traditional practices in their celebration of the OF, but it is equally important that such a return happen slowly over time so that the people who have grown up with the current form of the OF don’t face the same shock and trouble that happened back when the OF was first introduced. Because of this I think that many more parishes are actually celebrating the OF as they ought to be than is implied by most traditionalists, or at the very least much closer to how they ought to be.

 

[thewanderer]

Cardinal Ratzinger in Spirit of the Liturgy identified the change (not called for by Vatican II) to ad populum as something that demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of the nature of the Mass. I would not be the least surprised if that is one of the things he had in mind as a deformation of liturgy when he wrote about it as Pope.

I deleted my post right after I wrote it because I realized that I was largely responding because I was upset because of the way 10th crusader came across. The way he writes is very inflammatory. And yes, I am fully aware that the Mass is not supposed to be centered around people but rather around God, I guess I have just been to both ad orientem and ad populum masses and having the mass be ad orientem did nothing to make the mass more focused on Christ. However, things such as reverence shown by both the priest and people have made this difference. If one were to refuse to celebrate ad orientem then there would be a problem, but I have to say, of all the changes people want to make to the OF that is the one I understand least as I do not see how it really makes a difference. Perhaps it is different for other people and it is just me that this makes no difference for, but that experience colours my take on the situation.

 

[floresco]

I think whats causing the uproar here is that people have different ideas of what is necessary for the OF to be celebrated correctly. I agree that most places need to return more to traditional practices in their celebration of the OF, but it is equally important that such a return happen slowly over time so that the people who have grown up with the current form of the OF don’t face the same shock and trouble that happened back when the OF was first introduced. Because of this I think that many more parishes are actually celebrating the OF as they ought to be than is implied by most traditionalists, or at the very least much closer to how they ought to be.

As far as I can follow the thinking of the Pope, he believes that deformation of the OF is widespread, as is misunderstanding of fundamental liturgical principles based on the nature of the Mass. He seems to consider this a very serious problem and to be basing bishop appointments, in part, on finding men who will work on this.

In terms of pastoral implementation, I agree that he seems to favour a gradual approach. For example, he has not ordered the restoration of COTT and while kneeling, but has modeled it in his own Masses. For what it is worth, I think he is right.

But another part of the solution is providing access to the EF. The Pope has explicitly said that the EF is a legitimate aspiration for those who are pained by liturgical deformation.

 

[floresco]

I deleted my post right after I wrote it because I realized that I was largely responding because I was upset because of the way 10th crusader came across. The way he writes is very inflammatory. And yes, I am fully aware that the Mass is not supposed to be centered around people but rather around God, I guess I have just been to both ad orientem and ad populum masses and having the mass be ad orientem did nothing to make the mass more focused on Christ. However, things such as reverence shown by both the priest and people have made this difference. If one were to refuse to celebrate ad orientem then there would be a problem, but I have to say, of all the changes people want to make to the OF that is the one I understand least as I do not see how it really makes a difference. Perhaps it is different for other people and it is just me that this makes no difference for, but that experience colours my take on the situation.

I am sorry that I responded and did not allow you to act on your second thoughts. I understand why you might have problems with the tone of 10th crusaders post. Tone is a general problem here.

While different individuals will have different experiences of ad orientem and versus populum, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote about the theological implications of these directions in objective terms. He saw (and presumably still sees) versus populum as problematic.

 

[Melchior_1]

floresco, you wouldn’t happen to have anything from the time that Pope Benedict became Pope on this topic?

Does the Pope believe that deformations are widespread int he OF?

 

[floresco]

floresco, you wouldn’t happen to have anything from the time that Pope Benedict became Pope on this topic?

Does the Pope believe that deformations are widespread int he OF?

The use of the word deformations comes from the letter to bishops that accompanied Summorum Pontificum and he uses the word twice, suggesting he wants to stress the point:

This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.

He writes in the past tense which could suggest that he does not see it as a current problem. However, the fact that is saying that EF Masses should be provided now for people who have a problem with deformations, implies that he still sees it as a problem. Also, the combination of his own practices in Mass with what he wrote when Cardinal give a pretty good idea of what he thinks the Mass ought to be like. Most OF Masses do not meet that standard.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

The use of the word deformations comes from the letter to bishops that accompanied Summorum Pontificum and he uses the word twice, suggesting he wants to stress the point:

He writes in the past tense which could suggest that he does not see it as a current problem. However, the fact that is saying that EF Masses should be provided now for people who have a problem with deformations, implies that he still sees it as a problem. Also, the combination of his own practices in Mass with what he wrote when Cardinal give a pretty good idea of what he thinks the Mass ought to be like. Most OF Masses do not meet that standard.

See this is where I have a problem with your post,…you presume MORE then what the HOly Father has said. Even something presumably good such as allowing more greater access to the EF comes about as a slam of the OF. You are reading assumptions into what Holy Father has said…as Pope. That is wrong. Did you ever think that he might realize that some people will NEVER be happy with the OF and wanted to allow them greater access to the form that they love?

Please just stop being degrading and get back to the topic of youth at the EF without degrading the OF…or is that an impossible task?

 

[Melchior_1]

See this is where I have a problem with your post,…you presume MORE then what the HOly Father has said. Even something presumably good such as allowing more greater access to the EF comes about as a slam of the OF. You are reading assumptions into what Holy Father has said…as Pope. That is wrong. Did you ever think that he might realize that some people will NEVER be happy with the OF and wanted to allow them greater access to the form that they love?

Please just stop being degrading and get back to the topic of youth at the EF without degrading the OF…or is that an impossible task?

I’m inclined to agree with Annabelle’s assessment.

 

[Lormar]

I’m inclined to agree with Annabelle’s assessment.

So do I. More “experts” we don’t need.

 

[floresco]

See this is where I have a problem with your post,…you presume MORE then what the HOly Father has said. Even something presumably good such as allowing more greater access to the EF comes about as a slam of the OF. You are reading assumptions into what Holy Father has said…as Pope. That is wrong. Did you ever think that he might realize that some people will NEVER be happy with the OF and wanted to allow them greater access to the form that they love?

Please just stop being degrading and get back to the topic of youth at the EF without degrading the OF…or is that an impossible task?

I am doing my best to understand the mind of the Holy Father based on his words and actions. While it is always a real possibility that I could be wrong, my intent is to understand and obey him.

Saying that the OF has been subject to abuse and deformation does not degrade it. All three of the most recent popes have written about abuses of new Mass. Any Catholic ought to condemn abuses to the Mass and want to see it celebrated as intended.

 

[Walking_Home]

Melchor:

I’m inclined to agree with Annabelle’s assessment.

So do I. More “experts” we don’t need.

---

Ditto.

 

[floresco]

Could any of you people who think I am wrong in my understanding of the Pope give a reason? Have you read his letter to the bishops? Have you read Spirit of the Liturgy? What makes you so sure that I have misunderstood him?

 

[severus68]

Yes, I didn’t know it was gong to be that type of Mass, and I have an inordinate fear of clowns. It was very traumatic. :frighten:

In my post, I was trying to point out that I have no problem with the OF itself. It could be very reverent if it is celebrated properly. However, it has been my experience, a reverently celebrated OF is more the exception than the rule.

I have seen a few on EWTN that come close, but most of the OF Masses I have attended are too horribly distracting to permit me a proper spiritual disposition before the Real Presence. Even recently with all the new direction from the Vatican, they still fall short. Apparently, to discuss why I feel they are not celebrated reverently is a Verboten subject on CAF.

You say you have no problem with the OF but then you go on to say the OF masses fall short. Then you make negative comments about CAF rules. How much more do you want to put down the OF?

 

[severus68]

Leaving the good/bad aside for a second…
This issue is a matter of obedience to, and trust in, the priest’s superiors, and the Church at large, it’s not a matter of how knowlegable he is in theology.
None of the priests that I know ( I have one in the family) make comparisons of the “two” forms of the Mass. It’s not even on the radar screen. Not in their sphere of influence or competence. Even less for you and I.

Agreed,

 

[floresco]

Could any of you people who think I am wrong in my understanding of the Pope give a reason? Have you read his letter to the bishops? Have you read Spirit of the Liturgy? What makes you so sure that I have misunderstood him?

I should have included the link to the letter to bishops. vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html

When I looked it up, I reread it to see if I were distorting the meaning intended by the Pope. I found this comment further on which supports my conclusion that His Holiness sees abuse of the OF as an ongoing problem. Here he is exhorting the bishops to ensure that the Mass is celebrated correctly:

The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.

 

[floresco]

You say you have no problem with the OF but then you go on to say the OF masses fall short. Then you make negative comments about CAF rules. How much more do you want to put down the OF?

He said that he had no problem with the OF in itself but the ones that he had personally experienced fell short in that they contained abuses. There is no contradiction there nor is it a put down of the OF. I also did not see a put down of the CAF rules but of the unspoken understanding that many here seem to have of what is allowed to be said.

 

[severus68]

I think you may be attributing more intent to people’s words than are actually there. If you pull out select, unqualified words from people’s postings, you might be able to twist a conclusion that people don’t like people with small families or single parents at the EF. However, there were qualifications made in the same posting, and in follow-on posts that expressed entirely the opposite view that you seem to have ignored.

Nobody would ever look at someone with a small family at our EF parish in a bad way.Nor would they express any disapproval of a single parent or really anyone. Are you basing your view from actual experience at the EF Mass or stories from others?

However, I have noticed that those who attend the EF Mass has a tendency to be more quiet and introverted, perhaps even a little shy. Maybe you are interpreting reserve for disapproval.

As far as the EF being more reverent than the OF, that is people’s opinion. They have expressed their opinion and given reasons why they have that opinion. If you find the OF is more reverent than the EF that is fine too, and you are welcome to give your reasons.

And who said it was a competition? Just because the youth seem to prefer the EF Mass, (and we find more of them there every Sunday) doesn’t mean that the OF is not as good. It just doesn’t appeal to them. In most cases I think it is the way the OF is celebrated, not the actual form of the OF. Don’t you think it’s worth looking at why? We’re talking about keeping the young people in the Church and what is the best way to appeal to them.

I was not referring to just posts on this thread nor am I trying to twist anything. As I have said more than once, I have no issue with the EF. I find all masses good. It is one thing for someone to say he/she prefers the EF, it is quite another thing to say that that he/she finds the EF more reverent. We are not to do so in CAF which is about respectful discussion and learning.

Great if there are more young people joining the Church/attending mass, the form of mass. aside. I would be glad if this is happening all over the world but no generalisation can be made that it is just about and because of the EF

 

[severus68]

I guess I am one of the blessed ones. :getholy: My own children (teens/young adults) are faithful and go to OF Masses.

I don’t remember anyone saying that even if their own children/ cousins/ nephews/ grandchildren were falling away from the faith that they would keep them from attending the EF. What I saw being discussed was the fact that there are plenty of teens and young adults in OF Masses also; that an EF Mass isn’t absolutely required in order to attract young people to the church.

My first post on this thread was one saying how happy I was to hear of another instance of the Church growing. I am happy to hear it!