Growing use of the traditional Dominican Rite
  • Richard R.
    Posts: 588
    I find myself encountering more and more Dominican Rite priests making guest appearances at established Extraordinary Form Masses, and who chose to use their traditional Rite in place of the EF Roman Rite. I fully appreciate the difficulty sometimes in finding priests for EF Masses. I also sincerely appreciate the willingness of Dominican priests to staff these Masses. However, I would like to raise a few questions about the practice, hoping to generate some non-belligerent discussion:

    1) Given the distinct differences between the traditional Dominican and Roman Rites, is it fair to impose the former on EF congregations that signed on for the latter (a privilege often bought at a great price of blood, sweat, and tears)?

    2) Are the differences between the two rites significant enough to cause any real discomfort among traditional Mass-goers? or should we just get over it?

    2) What was the pre-concilliar practice regarding Dominicans saying Mass at local parishes? Were they allowed, encouraged, or somehow bound to use the Dominican Rite, or were they made to conform to local practice?
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 969
    @Richard R

    1. I don't mind really, and I can't see many 'Trads' being upset. Of course there may be some confusion but as long as it is announced, and translations are available it should be fine. It IS Traditional to have different Rites and Usages!

    2. I suspect some people would not notice, and others would be delighted!

    3. As far as I understand the Dominicans could use their Rite anywhere. I presume they need to ask permission of the Parish priest? N.B. Not all Rites and Usages could be used anywhere!
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,224
    The OP did not allow its members to say the TLM until 1955, fearing that they would be forced to give up their rite, which is exactly what happened after the Council, although using the contemporary use of Rome meant that the Dominican Rite is more or less intact, unlike the Ambrosian Rite. When this indult was issued, it was intended for priests teaching in African seminaries, and even in America, the monastic elements of the Dominican tradition were apparently vibrant. Many churches have choir stalls and spacious sanctuaries. This is just NY, Louisville, and Youngstown, each with an aesthetic appropriate for the medieval liturgy of the OP. (I imagine the bracket for the sanctuary candle in Louisvile was originally for the Easter candle, because it’s just so tall!)

    It’s fair, and it is unfair. The readings are the same, but that was because of Roman interference…one day, many years from now, one might see the OP reverting to the classical OP lectionary, in the same way people are looking to use the original hymns of the Office.

    The reality right now is that laymen do most of the serving and the work behind that, but we have no access to the OP resources. I do think it’s better to put it in the clergy’s hands, but the clergy is more than holy orders (or it ought to be), and transfers make it difficult to establish a traditional Mass without substantial lay help. This applies even to the OP, because the priest has to be equally interested and knowledgable or more so than the faithful for this to work.

    The chant is not terribly different, but it requires aid in finding the books and in learning to sing the chant.

    So, what about the Office and Holy Week? The Office is precisely why I decided against both the OP and monastic life. The traditional Holy Week is very different for the OP, and the OP, unlike the O.Praem., does not use folded chasubles.

    I personally think that the OP rite should be found in its houses and by extension its parishes taken on for the good of the church, but the mother rite is that of Rome, and so much work over centuries has been done to share, explain, and defend this rite that it ought to be left alone.

  • Kathy
    Posts: 4,696
    I think it could be disruptive if it happened fairly regularly, esp for those who read the EF as a whole--Mass and Office. There's an integrity there, an immersion into one complete liturgical expression.

    Otoh I doubt this level of commitment is widespread.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 969
    Otoh I doubt this level of commitment is widespread.

    I suspect that ⅓ of our E.F. congregation are reading at least most of the day hours of the Divine Office each day. Not that they are all using the 1962 or even the Roman Breviary. Many are carrying around a reprint of the Monastic Diurnal!
    Thanked by 1Kathy
  • Caleferink
    Posts: 216
    I would say if it were a semi-regular occurrence - say, every other week or two weeks in a row followed by a TLM and then Dominican again - it might be a problem. However, if it were simply an occasional thing - special occasions in the OP calendar, for instance - and announced in advance it wouldn't pose much of an issue.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,224
    I actually do know of one parish where the community seriously considered switching to the Dominican Rite. The priest was a member of the Third Order, as I understand it, so it was unusual but not insurmountable for him to be able to say it. In the end, they kept the Roman Rite
  • StimsonInRehabStimsonInRehab
    Posts: 791
    The nascent Latin Mass community in my hometown has a diocesan priest as well as a Dominican for its chaplains. If we can cover new vestments for the altar servers and learning the minutiae of celebrating the rites, I think it would be an asset to our community. Now, if anyone has suggestions of which books on Dominican chironomy I read first?