Youth and the Extraordinary Form

[severus68]

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.

All the masses I attend are reverent and are in the OF. Others have said the same. You must have a very limited experience of OF masses.

 

[maryjk]

All the masses I attend are reverent and are in the OF. Others have said the same. You must have a very limited experience of OF masses.

The problem is the definition of the word reverent.

I also attend a reverent Mass that is in the OF.

But I am betting that if floresco attended it, she would say that it wasn’t reverent.

It is all in what you are looking for.

 

[The_Curt_Jester]

All the masses I attend are reverent and are in the OF. Others have said the same. You must have a very limited experience of OF masses.

Some areas may be better than others. For instance, let me count what happens at local parishes. Keep in mind that I attend the NO on a regular basis and have probably found the most reverent one within an hour or so.

Church 1: The priest brings his dog everywhere. During adoration. Apparently the dog moves around trying to get attention from people.

Church 2: The priest sang a secular love song (during Mass) to the congregation and asked them to sing it back. Sang Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer during Christmas Mass.

Church 3: Liturgical dancers.

And so on. Obviously that will change with pastors, but I’m just saying that some of us don’t have a lot of choice if we don’t want to (or can’t) travel to get to Mass.

 

[severus68]

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.

I believe it was Br JR who said that what a Cardinal may have said is rather different from what a Pope says or to that effect.

 

[Moore11]

All the masses I attend are reverent and are in the OF. Others have said the same. You must have a very limited experience of OF masses.

The reverse could be true. Lets not get hot and bothered and defensive because someone states that they do not have access to a reverent OF. For some of us the reverent OF is as elusive as a white buffalo. We know they exist, but have never seen one in the wild.

 

[floresco]

All the masses I attend are reverent and are in the OF. Others have said the same. You must have a very limited experience of OF masses.

I did not use the word reverent. I said correctly done. By this I mean using papal Masses as a standard - things like appropriate use of EMHCs, incorporation of Latin, following rubrics carefully, etc.

 

[floresco]

I believe it was Br JR who said that what a Cardinal may have said is rather different from what a Pope says or to that effect.

Obviously what the Pope wrote as a Cardinal does not have the weight of what he writes now, but it sheds some light on his current writing. When the Pope writes about deformations of the Mass without specifying what these are, it is not unreasonable to think that he is referring to the liturgical problems he identified as a Cardinal.

 

[floresco]

The problem is the definition of the word reverent.

I also attend a reverent Mass that is in the OF.

But I am betting that if floresco attended it, she would say that it wasn’t reverent.

It is all in what you are looking for.

I attended an OF Mass this morning, as I usually do on week days when the EF is not available. I would call it a reverent Mass, but that parish consistently has a lay person distributing Communion when it is not necessary.

 

[severus68]

The reverse could be true. Lets not get hot and bothered and defensive because someone states that they do not have access to a reverent OF. For some of us the reverent OF is as elusive as a white buffalo. We know they exist, but have never seen one in the wild.

I do not have to be and I am not defensive. I have never heard anyone who prefers the OF say anything disparaging about the EF. Perhaps you have your own ideas of what is reverent.

 

[thewanderer]

I do not have to be and I am not defensive. I have never heard anyone who prefers the OF say anything disparaging about the EF. Perhaps you have your own ideas of what is reverent.

They don’t say disparaging things about the EF (well, at least usually… I have heard a couple of things…) but they are certainly at times guilty of judging those who prefer the EF far too quickly and making assumptions about what they think and about whether or not they are being good and obedient Catholics when doing so is completely unjustified. The blame in this division is not one-sided.

 

[floresco]

They don’t say disparaging things about the EF (well, at least usually… I have heard a couple of things…) but they are certainly at times guilty of judging those who prefer the EF far too quickly and making assumptions about what they think and about whether or not they are being good and obedient Catholics when doing so is completely unjustified. The blame in this division is not one-sided.

I have greatly appreciated your efforts to be fair about this. Thank you.

 

[Moore11]

I do not have to be and I am not defensive. I have never heard anyone who prefers the OF say anything disparaging about the EF. Perhaps you have your own ideas of what is reverent.

True, I do have my own ideas of what is reverent as do you. I wonder if they are the same. They could be. You should try to be a little more open minded.
Please clarify and tell me what your idea of reverent is?

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

I did not use the word reverent. I said correctly done. By this I mean using papal Masses as a standard - things like appropriate use of EMHCs, incorporation of Latin, following rubrics carefully, etc.

Those all seem to be based on your opinion of what those things are.

I had negative experiences with the EF when I was a child…that and those that loved it that took me are part of the reason I left the church. BUT I realize that is not the fault of that form of the Mass. I also recognize that if I went to the EF…I would be looking for those perceptions again…and would probably find them…because I’m only looking through my lense. Could you not concede that when you attend the OF…you are looking through your lense…and are likely to find what you have an opinion to be incorrect…but for both of us it might be like a bad sunburn…you are likely to be more sensitive to it. But that doesn’t make it the truth.

Lots of people love the EF…and I personally (even with my bad experiences) think it’s wonderful that they are expanding it for those that love it. I also think its wonderful that young people are enjoying it…so it isn’t just old ladies in veils…which is really what this thread was suppose to be about…no?

 

[Esrb99]

I do not have to be and I am not defensive. I have never heard anyone who prefers the OF say anything disparaging about the EF. Perhaps you have your own ideas of what is reverent.

would this count as disparaging?

Chasing the Money Changers out of the Temple
March 11, 2012
by Deacon John Ashmore

…The Jesus that I know and fell in love with is the gentle Jesus who cured the sick, cast out demons and brought the dead back to life. But this gospel reveals a Jesus who shows righteous anger…why was Jesus angry with merchants who were providing a needed service?

He was angry because they were not honest dealers. They cheated the poor who had no option but to do business with them. They swindled the powerless, and Jesus knew it. And so we see his righteous anger erupt as he drives them out of the temple.
One of the traps that we can fall into when we read scriptures like this is to view the story as the beginning and the end…“They were dishonest traders, Jesus got angry. Jesus was good, so he drove the bad people out. I’m sure glad I’d I’m not one of the bad people!”

But the scriptures are more than stories about what happened 2000 years ago. They are also metaphors that instruct us on how to live our lives. Thinking about today’s gospel metaphorically allows us to hear…“the rest of the story.”

…

Through an active prayer life, through the sacraments, especially through reconciliation and the Eucharist, he helps us to drive the “money changers” out of our lives. He is never far away. He is as close as our very breath and heartbeat, if we simply call out to him for help.

I think over the period of a couple thousand years, the church developed some institutional “money changers”. The “rites”, that’s R-I-T-E-S, became failings in some ways. Just to be clear, there is nothing inherently wrong with the old rites, Latin or the Tridentine Mass. They were beautiful and mystical, but sometimes they were so mystical that they cut us off from the immanent reality of Jesus with us and in us.

If you’re near my age, you might recognize this little book. It’s the Missal that my Mom & Dad bought for me as a Confirmation gift. This gift was a symbol that I was no longer a child. I was now, at the age of ten, responsible to take my missal to every mass I attended, and follow the reading and prayers as they were said by the priest. There was just one minor problem, and it began like this: “In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen. Introibo ad altare Dei. Ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam.” (That means, “In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. I will go in to the Altar of God. To God, the joy of my youth.”)

The mass was celebrated entirely in a language that none of us understood. The priest stood with his back to us saying words that, even if we could hear them, which we seldom could, we didn’t understand…

As we celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the beginning of Vatican II, I think it’s important to remember what things looked like before the council reforms. As the people of God we have always been called to worship well. But, as Father Dibble reminded us last week, the council was called to “open the windows”, to bring some fresh air into every aspect of the church, including worship…So I want to take a few minutes to walk down memory land and share with you what it looked like back then.

(1) This is what the inside of a typical Catholic Church looked like in 1960. There was beautiful art work, painted ceilings, and many statues. If you look at either side of this picture, you’ll notice the “side altars”. Very often, while one mass was being offered at the main altar, separate masses would be offered at one or both of the side altars. The idea that any mass was more about the celebrant than the people might be viewed as one of the pre-Vatican II failings of the church.

(2) As we look at a closer shot, we see a wooden structure that separates the body of the church from the sanctuary… Could that be a money changer? I’ll come back to that in a minute.

(3) Look at this altar, with its ornate carvings. You could always tell if the mass was really “important” by two things: how many candles were lit on the altar and how many acolytes served at mass. The more important the feast was, the greater were the numbers of both. Look at all of the steps the priest had to climb to approach the tabernacle. Do you think these trappings might be thought of as institutional failings or “money changers”?

(4) Here’s another communion rail… This is where everyone had to kneel to receive the Blessed Sacrament. The Communion Cloth, this white cloth, was draped over the communion rail by the altar servers, and then communicants had to kneel with their hands under the cloth in case the priest dropped the host and the altar server didn’t catch it with the paten that was held under the chin of each Communicant. Only the priest and bishop had thumbs and forefingers consecrated so they could touch the host. To me the idea that only consecrated fingers could touch the Blessed Sacrament was a bit*** silly***. Why is any finger more sacred than any other?

(5) This is a rather innocent looking picture, but there is one thing that is worth noting: we didn’t have altar servers, just altar boys! That’s a pretty obvious failing in the institutional church, and we thankfully now include both girls and boys in altar service.
(6) And then, after we realized that we had so many money changers in our own lives, we had to go to the confessional. It was dark. It was scary and it seemed to be focused on us doing the correct penance rather than on understanding our failings…

ctkph.org/homilies/homilies2012/homily031112.html

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

would this count as disparaging?

ctkph.org/homilies/homilies2012/homily031112.html

You know…that was not from a CAF’er. I could go out into all sorts of web sites and find disparaging things about the OF being said…but it would be unkind and unfair of me to attribute them to anyone here on CAF.

 

[Esrb99]

You know…that was not from a CAF’er. I could go out into all sorts of web sites and find disparaging things about the OF being said…but it would be unkind and unfair of me to attribute them to anyone here on CAF.

Being from CAF was not the qualifier in severus68’s post. The qualifier was someone who prefers the OF of the mass.

What floresco seems to be saying is that at a minimum, the mass that came after the council should be celebrated according to the directives of the council. I personally think this is a fair assessment, and to me, it comes naturally. For example, the council called for the people’s parts to be retained in Latin, and for pastors to make use of them enough so that the faithful knew them. I would argue that this is not the case in the vast majority of OF parishes. As such, it could be said that pastors who have read the council documents and still do not occasionally use Latin ordinary responses (dominus vobiscum, sursum corda, etc) are in a spirit of disobedience with the document sacrosanctum concilium from Vatican II.

"54. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and “the common prayer,” but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them."

 

[pnewton]

Being from CAF was not the qualifier in severus68’s post. The qualifier was someone who prefers the OF of the mass.

You probably won’t find much of that here. It is against the rules to disparage any form of the Mass. Most have enough integrity not to violate the promise we make to abide by the rules here.

 

[Esrb99]

It is against the rules to disparage any form of the Mass.

Last time I checked, saying that one hopes for priests to follow the constitutions of Vatican II, the GIRM, and to say the black and do the red was not disparaging any form of the mass.

You probably won’t find much of that here.

True, I may not find much. But the first instance of it occurring about either form was on page 2 in this thread by Baelor, who said,

“I would also hope that the return to tradition manifests itself in the OF and that it will be celebrated as intended, thus decreasing demand for the EF.”

I have never said such a thing about either form of the mass. While I do hope for a more widespread celebration of the EF, I would hope for it to be alongside the OF, and for the celebration of the OF to become more in line with the constitutions of the church.

 

[pnewton]

“I would also hope that the return to tradition manifests itself in the OF and that it will be celebrated as intended, thus decreasing demand for the EF.”

I have never said such a thing about either form of the mass. While I do hope for a more widespread celebration of the EF, I would hope for it to be alongside the OF, and for the celebration of the OF to become more in line with the constitutions of the church.

I do not think it disparaging wanting to see more or less of one form or the other. We all have preferences. I sure have never seen it that way when people want to see wider spread of the EF, which by necessity means one less that is the OF.

 

[thewanderer]

I do not think it disparaging wanting to see more or less of one form or the other. We all have preferences. I sure have never seen it that way when people want to see wider spread of the EF, which by necessity means one less that is the OF.

Also, when Baelor was pressed he (she?) clarified that what was meantt was not that he/she hoped and wanted the EF to become less frequent, but rather that an increase in traditions in the OF is likely to (it ‘should’) decrease some of the desire for the EF, which is probably true. As originally stated it did sound as though Baelor thought of the EF as a bad thing and wanted it to be less available, but that was already clarified in this thread. That is not a good example.