Growing up on the East Coast and living in the Midwest, I can relate to those assessments, even post-conciliarly(...?).

All Sunday Masses should be High Masses. It is Sunday, after all.

I read scripture before Vatican II as did many others. I even owned - gasp, shudder - Bibles. By allowing the Divine Office to fall into disuse, the Church in the U.S. did a disservice to all its members. Attending and praying the hours gives a much greater exposure to scripture. Somehow, it became something restricted to the clergy in this country and that was everyone's loss.

The revised Lectionary is largely a disaster. That was the upshot of the paper I gave this past summer at Sacra Liturgia. The old lectionary worked far better for its liturgical purpose, and had been around for close to 1,500 years -- not a bad track record. Small improvements could have been made, but Vatican II's indication that changes should be organic was ignored here as elsewhere.

You could say it's a question of being familiar with a greater amount of Scripture versus knowing certain passages very well (since they were read every year). Which of these constitutes a "better" knowledge of Scripture is an open question - though I tend to think the latter option is preferable. And as with many things supposedly inaugurated by Vatican II, a revival of lay interest in the Bible pre-dates the Council.

Of course, if you take into consideration the fact that far fewer people now go to mass than right before Council, it's about a wash at best.

The revised office is also less conducive to the formation of pious memory because the psalter has been redistributed. It was better when the minor hours and Compline didn’t change, but at least the Psalms were all prayed in a week in the pre-conciliar office.

Paul,

I think he's pulling your leg. My father tells the story of a fellow serviceman, decades ago, who said something like this: "If the St. James Version was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me".

johnmann is partially correct. There actually was a three year Jewish lectionary along with a one year lectionary; however, scholars, based on the evidence, are now questioning when it was finalized, some even suggesting just before the destruction of the temple. In fact, several prominent scholars believe the lessons in Jesus' time were still chosen by the presider or reader of the Torah. The earliest sources we have do not lend impressive support to the idea of a fixed lectionary whether annual, biennial (which very few believe existed), or triennial.

No leg pulling. My comment should be taken literally. While not certain, if we were forced to guess, it's more likely than not that Jesus and the apostles used a 3-year Torah reading cycle.

Whether 1, 2, 3, or 10 years, the cycle should serve the Word of God and not the other way around. Exposure to more Scripture, especially now that it's invariably understood readily in the vernacular, is undoubtedly an advantage to be weighed against better familiarity with fewer sections of Scripture. The familiarity advantage is sometimes exaggerated by apologists for the 1-year cycle. Don't forget that, given our longer life-expectancy, the typical cradle Catholic may hear the readings of the 3-year cycle 20 times or more over a lifetime. There are movies I've watched fewer than 20 times that I've recorded to memory practically word-for-word. In my view, altering the length of the cycle is well within the rather nebulous concept of "organic development," on par with altering the more minor rubrics of the Mass. In this case, small-t tradition should serve as a tie-breaker and not a trump card.

that it's invariably understood readily in the vernacular,

Utter rot. Nonsense. Horsefeathers. Copies of the Kasper Proposal.

Seriously, if better understanding derives from the vernacular, and if this better understanding makes better Catholics, then Mass in the vernacular should have filled the pews with wonderfully holy Catholics. Since that conclusion is everywhere in abeyance, the necessary good of the vernacular is called into question.

Jesus did all this while playing Bach and singing Solesmes chant in square notes

Funny, Charles. Thank you.

if better understanding derives from the vernacular

If? That one needs to understand in order to understand shouldn't be a point of debate. The readings aren't like the Canon where there's at least liturgical actions to accompany the words.

if this better understanding makes better Catholics, then Mass in the vernacular should have filled the pews with wonderfully holy Catholics.

I can just as easily claim that the vernacular prevented an even greater exodus.

Look, I prefer Latin (though not for the readings), but not because of these spurious traditionalist arguments blaming all social ills on the use of the vernacular.

You could claim such a thing, but it would be without evidentiary foundation.

Ditto.

What gets lost in the Latin/vernacular debate is that Latin WAS the language of the people at the time. The object in translating from Greek and other languages was so the people could understand. Unfortunately, in an overreaction to Protestantism that only made matters worse than they could have been, Trent institutionalized language and practices that should have died a natural death much earlier.

Now I expect to hear from the "Old Believers," which is what some of the traditional crowd has become. If you are not familiar with them, they were a group that broke away from the Russian Orthodox Church over the most trivial of things.

Today, our biggest problem is the loss of souls to secularism. This is something Latin can not resolve.

Vernacular discussion of Latin doctrine prevents against major slippage.

Good luck with finding lay people in any quantity who understand Latin. Why not go for better English translations of the originals? Surely, this is not impossible.

Do Catholics truly have a better understanding (comprehension, not simply acknowledgement of a flow of vernacular words of which one knows the meaning) of Scripture now?

We had 60+ people attend the beginnings of a 24-week parish study of St. Matthew just last week. Education is the best way to increase understanding of scripture. Prayer for guidance from the Holy Spirit before each training session is a must.

Only study, and that with the aid of sound commentaries, can deepen understanding.

Our official text is the Revised Standard 2nd Catholic Edition which is very good. I picked up the Navarre Bible St. Matthew which has some commentaries by St. Josemaria Escriva and have been reading his comments along with the scripture. His comments are incredible! They are so good I have been sharing them with the group.

I admit my error about the Jewish lectionary, but we are talking about Catholic liturgy. No Catholic liturgy had a 3-year lectionary; they had at the most continuous readings that didn't span 3 years at the most! The earliest lectionaries all invariably had 1-year cycles! If you want to go back to the Apostles and early Jewish Christians, they still attended Synagogue and temple services until kicked out. The Eucharist had no readings except what Jesus did and extempore prayers. The synaxis and Eucharist weren't joined til around the 2nd-3rd centuries.

In any event, we are not at Mass to learn Scripture as the primary function; it is for praise of God. That is why in the 1962 Missal, appropriate texts are used for the various mysteries and feasts, not continuous Scripture for mere instruction!

And also, how many people attend daily Mass to get their full dose of the 3/2 year lectionary? Very few, I imagine. I should know.

My experience, growing up before the council was that we attended a low Mass in Latin, following the Latin lessons in an English translation in a hand missal. Before the sermon, the priest read the lessons from the Mass in English. So we had the lessons twice. The parables from those Sunday lessons have remained as a most fundamental part of my religious understanding. The reason the cycle used Matthew mostly was because his version was often the more complete, viv-a-vis the other synoptics. The repetition of the same lessons yearly was a greater means of assimilating the Gospel values than the three-year cycle. When I attended a Jesuit college (before the council) we had a requited year-long course in scripture, in which we read most of the scripture seriatim. Pretty good.

Which brings us back to the Divine Office...
Much could've been solved, I believe, if that were promoted and prayed as much as possible.

One thing many commenters in this thread are missing is the HUGE difference between studying the Bible and proclaiming it liturgically.

THIS. The lessons are lessons. But lessons about what?

The point of the scriptural readings in the Liturgy is to bring into sharper focus a particular aspect of the Mystery being celebrated that day: they are lessons about that particular Mystery, not lessons about the bible itself. Otherwise there really isn't a reason why we have to use the Nativity account on Christmas or the Resurrection account on Easter.

If the lessons are simply to hear the Bible, it could be argued that the readings on those days should simply be part of the lectio continuo, even if that means that we would read about the curing of the centurion's slave on Pentecost.

This is an issue that I have particularly with the ferial readings during the time Per Annum: it seems like the sole purpose is to get through as much as possible, and often the lections will have precious little in common with the orations and processional propers for a given Mass. And if the priest uses the ferial readings on the memorials of saints, there is an even greater disconnect: you could end up hearing about the woman caught in adultery on the feast of Teresa of Avila! (NB: slightly hyperbolic example, but don't have time to go digging through the Calendar, Missal and Lectionary for examples.)

While there are some changes I might suggest if anyone in authority were to invite my opinion on the matter, *overall* I strongly prefer the current Sunday-festal lectionary over the preconciliar course of lections. Fortunately, I don't think it's going away any time soon.

Before there was a set lectionary there was this:

And on the day called Sunday, .... and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.

Rather different from an experience my wife had in Dublin, admittedly on a weekday about 60 years ago, of the approach of the priest to the altar being accompanied by one of his brethren ascending to the pulpit, from which he lead a recitation of the rosary pausing (and genuflecting) only at the consecration.

Lesson means lection, means reading. The readings are not lessons in the modern English sense of a teaching unit, any more than Ordinary Time is ordinary or the eucharistic species is some kind of antipodean bird.

Liam wrote:

the preconciliar lectionary for Sundays demonstrated a preference (not exclusive) for the Gospel of St Matthew among the Synoptics, but St Luke was also well represented - St Mark was nearly absent.

This brings up an interesting question. According to this resource:

Over 90% of Mark is included in Matthew, and about 50% is included in Luke, so there are only very few unique passages in Mark’s Gospel.

So all of these unique passages must be in the lectionary, right? I was surprised to find when taking a quick look through them that this isn't the case, for Sundays and Solemnities at any rate:

Passages unique to Mark:

Introduction:
The beginning of the good news (1:1) included
Jesus being with the wild beasts during temptations (1:13) included

Miracles:
Healing of deaf and mute man in Decapolis (7:31-37) included
Healing of blind man in Bethsaida in two stages (8:22-26) NOT included

Conversation with father of demonised boy throwing himself in to fire (9:21-24) NOT included
Boy being like a corpse and people thinking he was dead (9:26-27) NOT included
This kind of demon can only come out through prayer (9:29) NOT included

Other incidents during ministry:
Calling disciples to mountain to preach, and cast out demons (3:13-15) NOT included
Jesus’ family trying to restrain him (3:20-21) included

Eye-witness details:
Jesus being asleep on a cushion during storm (4:38) included
Jesus saying, “Peace, Be still” to the storm (4:39) included
Details about strength of Gerasene demoniac (5:4-5) NOT included
Jesus being aware that power had gone from him when healing woman with bleeding (5:30) included (but may be omitted in the shorter form of the reading)
Departure to Tyre, and entering a house, not wanting anyone to know he was there (7:24) NOT included
Jesus being indignant when disciples sent children away (10:14) included

Parables:
Parable of seed growing secretly (4:26-29) included
Analogy of man going on journey and leaving doorkeeper to be on watch (13:34) NOT included

Teaching and comments:
Sabbath made for man, not man for the Sabbath, so Son of Man is lord of Sabbath (2:27) included
James and John being given the name “Boanerges", meaning "sons of Thunder” (3:17) NOT included
Everyone salted with fire. Salt losing its saltiness - be at peace (9:48-49) one verse, included, the other not
Blessings include persecutions for those who give up everything (10:30) included
Scribe’s reply to Jesus about importance of loving God and neighbour (12:32-34) included

Incidents during passion and resurrection:
The naked young man running away (14:51-52) included
Pilate asking whether Jesus was already dead (15:44) included
Question about who will roll away the stone (16:3) included
Disciples afraid and not telling anyone (16:8b) included

And the cursus in the EF doesn't?!! I myself don't see the superiority of the new lectionary at all, even for Ordinary Time! As I said, if I wanted more Scripture, I would have used the readings of the pre-conciliar Office.

My question is this: was it really needed to introduce the new lectionary, with that feature among others, at the expense of a 1500-year tradition, for alleged advantages for more Scripture? All the answers I have seen here do not address that well, IMHO.

Going against a hallowed tradition of 1500+ years isn't a strong argument, nor the fact that I am not going to Mass to learn Scripture for a 3/2 year cycle? Nor the fact that no liturgy ever featured this innovation, East or West? How about that no person can absorb all that in 3 years, except perhaps the most diligent person? Then tradition is reduced to nothing, and anyone can innovate as he pleases!!

Prof. Dobszay's arguments haven't been refuted, nor Msgr. Klaus Gamber's. I believe the argument that tradition is subverted to be the best one. An innovation of a mere 35 years that hasn't worked out in practice vs. a hallowed 1500+ year tradition? Give me Tradition any day!

There, I've said my bit. I know it's probably not going to convince you or others because of your subjective attachment to the new lectionary, but nonetheless thousands of saints and millions of laity were formed on the old lectionary.

We seem to be forgetting that the Liturgy of the Hours was created for the priests and religious, not the people in the pews. I'll bet most of your parents and grandparents didn't even know what the Liturgy of the Hours was.

All of these comments about the 'superiority' of the EF over the OF, or of Latin over English just sound like so much sour grapes to me. After Vatican II, the Mass was changed. Deal with it.

Matthew,

I didn't know that there were youngsters hereabouts. Welcome!

The discussion seems to have meandered to address the office because people on both sides of the argument were looking for more evidence to support their position.

Would it be fair to say that, as a rule, the Divine Office hasn't been promoted assiduously since the Council, and that -- therefore -- the Liturgy = the Mass in the minds of most? If that's true, then a three year cycle in the only experience of the liturgy is seen to trump a mere 1-year cycle. Proclaiming Holy Scripture at Mass presumes a greater knowledge by both reader and auditor. (If you've seen the thread-s about silly things lectors say, you know that reading more doesn't make one proficient, much less knowledgeable). In part, the question of the lectionary is a question about the entire liturgical reform project.

Cheers,

Chris

Agreed on recovering the proper chants.
And yet, on a practical level, the 3 year cycle makes familiarization of the propers more out of reach. There are far more Sunday chants to learn for the average choir and to for the faithful to prayerfully absorb when using the '74 GR than the 61/62 LU. Having served as a schola director of volunteers attempting Sunday mass propers in both the EF and the OF, it has been my experience that it is much more difficult to learn the rotation of propers in the OF. More variety, less continuity.

Which brings me around to this post, because "more variety but less continuity" is also my personal experience with the expanded lectionary. I'd rather study Scripture on my own time and assimilate lessons on a yearly cycle, which I also find wise in terms of a natural yearly rhythm. It seems deeper and more ordered to me.

We seem to be forgetting that the Liturgy of the Hours was created for the priests and religious, not the people in the pews.

Not necessarily. Eastern churches pray the hours, open to and including all parishioners, and give them pretty high status. In fact, attending Vespers is equivalent to attending Divine Liturgy on Sunday. One can do either or both. I find the combination of the two opens new doors to understanding both scripture and liturgy.

A friend of mine said, “Catholicism lost so much when the Mass was changed.”

Yes, it did. If those revisionists at Trent had just kept their hands off it...

And useless repetition is relative: I have a feeling that that is why the old ICET/ICEL 'Glory to God' truncated the first ejaculations (Laudamus te, Benedicimus te, &c) and the 'Lamb of God' litany in the middle.

And if repetition is useless: why didn't they compose different hymns for the ordinary? We could use the 'Gloria' on some Sundays, but we could also substitute 'Te Deum' or 'Te decet Laus'. And they also should have scrapped the second Hosanna in the Sanctus - since we've already sung it once already. And heck, we could even have the option of scrapping 'Benedictus' altogether and substitute in 'Ave Verum', or 'O Salutaris',--but not, of course, 'Pie Jesu', that's too morbid! And we also need to make sure that none of the congregational hymns have refrains, too much useless repetition.

What exactly constitutes useless repetition? Waiting a whole year for Pentecost XII to come round again doesn't seem like useless repetition to me.

Useless repetition is very relative but it's also not without any meaning. Also, I did not intent to mean that the 1-year cycle creates useless repetition. Only that when SC admits that "useless repetition" is a good enough reason to modify the liturgy, they're setting the bar really low. It's a response to those who claim that Vatican II didn't authorize the OF as it exists today.

If we want to compare the New and old Lectionary we need to ask some questions,

Question,
How Important are the readings at Mass?
Let us say on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 - Not important, 10 - Very important.
Well for me I would say 3, I go to Mass for the Sacrificial aspect. I would suspect that many people attending the E.F. would give answers between 1 and 5. I also suspect that those attending the O.F. would give a wider range say 1-8 I base this from seeing the Confirmation classes attitude to the Faith, illustrated by how many are seen in church after their Confirmation (This is and O.F. class). I am sure many protestants would answer in the 7-10.

Question,
Are the readings in the Mass part of a comprehensive course in Bible study?
Well looking at the 3 year lectionary we could say maybe, looking at the E.F. we could say maybe not.

Question,
Has the 3 year cycle (2 year cycle, 1 year cycle) in the O.F. been a success? AND how could we measure this?
I will suggest Mass attendance, numbers of Ordinations, Baptisms, Marriages, COULD be a good measure. I could conclude that this would show that the new cycles are NOT a success.

Scripture is not better understood by reading it or hearing it, even in the vernacular (it helps), but by studying it. Hearing it proclaimed at Mass does not aid in understanding (it aids in spiritual growth, etc.). Only study, and that with the aid of sound commentaries, can deepen understanding.

This (Commentaries) is something that we can find plenty of books written for the E.F. (St. Andrew Daily Missal, Gueranger, Liturgical year are good examples. I prefer to do my Bible study outside the Mass, with just the two E.F. Readings takes time, can we (the average catholic) really cope with 3?

Do Catholics truly have a better understanding (comprehension, not simply acknowledgement of a flow of vernacular words of which one knows the meaning) of Scripture now? I allow that vernacular readings are better for comprehension, though hearing Scripture read in Latin gave a better connection to the music in Latin (and vernacular Scripture can be read before or after Mass, or in the homily).

That is without the problem of Lay readers that can't read, poor translations, editing out of 'difficult' passages, and the difficultly for the average catholic to know which cycle is being used. I would be interested in the results of a survey after an O.F. Mass as to what percentage of the congregation know which Year the readings are from, and how many have Missals / Commentaries to follow along at home.

Amy Welborn made a point regarding the supposed superiority of Mass in the vernacular several years ago: she said, after the Collect, turn to anyone in the church and ask them to repeat what was just said. Her guess, and mine also, would be very few people could do that. Merely reading something in your own language does not guarantee understanding or even intelligent interest.

Oh, and if I remember correctly, we don't have a single EF parish in the diocese.

We have had 4 new priests ordained in each of the past two years. There are usually 8 or more in seminary at any given time. Keep in mind this is a small diocese. The vocations office really works at this, so things are looking pretty good.

Excellent have we found a new rule?
Those in places that have successful N.O. parishes with regular vocations, do not think that the E.F. is the answer.

So can I ask what are you doing that makes you successful, and why cannot this be brought to solve the problems of the many diocese that are declining rapidly!

Some of us cling to the OF because...

1) I work there and it is the mass I am paid to play/conduct for.
2) It reflects reforms that were greatly needed and overdue in the old rite.
3) It follows the liturgical books to the letter.
4) I have little interest in medieval, Civil War, or any other variety of let's pretend reenactment.
5) I have never been afraid of anything or anyone in my life. If there is any fear, it is among those who want to retreat into a past that they think was idyllic.
6) The music is excellent and represents the best we are capable of performing - should be the case in both rites.
7) I have never bought any arguments for liturgical languages.
8) The Church has a right to control its liturgy and its celebration of that liturgy. The keys of the kingdom were not given to the anachronistic among us, but to legitimate Church authorities.

Does all this mean I want to take away the EF? No, of course not. Celebrate it all you like. I am just tired of holier-than-thou old ritualists telling everyone else, including Church authorities, they are wrong.

There are people not discussed here, of course, who promote the OF.

I did cover that situation, Charles. I'm not being "holier than thou", or any such nonsensical thing.

I did cover that situation, Charles. I'm not being "holier than thou", or any such nonsensical thing.

I don't promote the OF, just try to do the best job possible with it. It is my job to do exactly that, meeting the requirements laid down by lawful authority.

Nonsensical? Just because you say it doesn't make it so. LOL.

Charles,

I know people, personally, who cling to the OF for the reasons I stated in explicit form. I also know that there are others who cling to the OF for other reasons, including but not limited to ... a) it never occurred to me to attend Mass in any other form; b) I didn't know that the Latin Mass was available or even legal (yes, such people exist); c) My parish doesn't offer the Extraordinary Form, and I like the (CCD, youth program, pastor......).

That I stated the truth seems to bother you, but I can't guess why, and I won't try.

What I claimed to be nonsensical was your implication that I (or other people you call old ritualists) am taking an attitude of "holier than thou". True, my claiming such doesn't make it true, just as my not claiming it wouldn't make it false.

"I disagree with Charles" and "I prefer the EF" are not synonymous with "You are a piece of turd which I will not deign to scrape off my shoe".

@ClemensRomanus - Our parish is in the Diocese of Tyler.

Actually it doesn't. Let's say there are no issues of holiness or ignorance involved. What would really fix things would be if those who carp continually about the NO would actually do something to try and fix the problems. That is much harder to do.

What you call carping is carping in some people, true, but not in everyone who finds fault with the rite, even if the finding of fault is frequent.

True. I am not one to take to the hills or hide out when things are not good. I stay and fight. The victories are not always large, and sometimes they take years. I can deal with that.

I hope Paul VI wasn't a Mason, although I have heard him and close associates accused of that for years.

I'm not exactly sure how those critical of the OF would go about "fix[ing] the problems," other than help to ensure that celebrations of both the EF and OF are as reverent as possible - which is what most are already doing.

That, and a few steps I have found practical when dealing with music. CharlesW's 10 rules for sacred music.

1. Slowly wins the race. Plan on implementing good music over a period of years, not next week.
2. Seek supporters among the key people in the parish.
3. Cultivate the wealthy in the parish. You want to be their friend and gain their support. They have the ear of the pastor like you may never have.
4. Keep a few congregational favorites and use them periodically. You may not like them, but the congregation gets warm feelings toward you.
5. Be there for the pastor. Assume he wants to do the right thing and needs your support.
6. Keep the pastor and associate "in the loop" on everything. They don't like surprises.
7. Support the parish financially as best you can. It puts you in a good light.
8. Make sure the pastor has the materials he needs to support good music. See that everything he needs to participate is in the right place and ready for his use.
9. When anyone says something supportive, ask them to relay that to the pastor.
10. Pick your battles wisely. Don't fight over trivial things you either can't win, or are not worth the time and effort you put into the fight.

As for the critical, if you leave and complain from outside the OF, you don't have much credibility. You are gone and it doesn't affect you. Whatever problems may be part of the OF are not experienced by you. You are somewhere else and have no real standing to complain.

If you didn't leave, complain constructively. Present logical and reasonable arguments on how to make specific items better. Whining accomplishes nothing.

You will notice that all the above has to do with creating conditions where you can do good sacred music. It doesn't help to be technically proficient in music if the support structures are not in place. You will fail.

There are only TWO PEOPLE IN CREATION WHO COULD FIX THE N.O.:

H.H. FRANCIS, Bishop of Rome

and

H.E. Robert Card. SARAH, Prefect of the CDW

And, unless I'm much mistaken, neither of them frequents this Forum.

Also, the problems with the post-Vat.2 Mass are not the only problems with the Neo-Roman Rites: The Mass was changed to something unrecognizable in the Latin Liturgical Tradition as the Roman Rite; the rites for all of the Sacraments were changes, the Divine Office was mutilated, etc.

TBH, Implementing Sacred Music is all well and fine, but the problems are much deeper than whether a parish uses Palestrina or Haugen, and no amount of Gregorian Chant can fix that.

And, if you think that those of us who find fault with the New Rites just need to get over it: Imagine the outcry in the East if a committee of Bugnini-style "experts" decided to mutilate John Chrysostom, "Novus Ordo Style"?

Opening Verse: Retained
Great Litany: Cut (too much needless repetition)
Antiphons and Little Litanies: Cut (too much needless repetition)
Little Entrance: Retained
Trisiagon: Once only, Cut Glory Be
Litany of Supplication & Great Entrance: Shorten litany, Lord have mercy once only, too needless much repetition
Roman Canon, and Canon of St. Hipolytus inserted as options
Prayer to the Theotokos: Cut (too much Mary, offensive to Protestants)
Litany after Holy Communion: Shortened, repetitions from previous litany cut.

Rubrics: Cherubic hymn must be sung by all, together (no more polyphony), remove Iconostasis, say liturgy 'facing the people', Sub-Diaconate supressed.

And then called the New Divine Liturgy. I don't think it'd fly, do you?

I had to laugh at the comment of running to the hills or hiding out when things aren't good being used to describe those who believe the EF to be superior to the OF. Why? Because it's a ridiculous and (to parrot Adam) extraordinary! I think you'll find that many who take that opinion (EF is superior) have spent years working in their own parishes (which are purely OF) or around trying to make things better. I know many people personally who have done such things. You know what has happened in my area?

1. We were called "divisive" by a priest because we requested one EF per year.

2. One priest who was favorable found that he was being tracked by the diocese for even permitting one EF to be said at his parish. That's right, he got a call from the diocese: "Oh, Father, we hear you're having an EF at your parish..." Harassment, in short.

3. When we do get one, it's every third Saturday and only when there's a full moon within that week.

4. We get so-called "liturgists" who try to hide everything in the sacristy so we can't find candles, a crucifix, or anything else needed for the EF.

This isn't running and hiding. Frankly, it's being in the thick of it and quite often there's, simply put, persecution from the priests, bishops, and laity. Yes, it is persecution when a priest is moved from a parish because he says the EF. It's persecution when a priest is punished by having all his help removed because he says the EF. It's persecution when a bishop forbids a retired priest from saying the EF. And, yes, all that happens around here.

Running? Hiding?

And finally, there's the saying "by their fruits you shall know them."

Around here, we get rotten fruit from the OF.

Locally, at least, the greatest barrier to a wider use of the EF is finding priests who are willing to celebrate it. Many don't have any desire to or see that the numbers are not there to support it. The EF is freely available weekly in my parish. The attendance isn't that great.

Fix the NO? I wonder if those who think the NO is broken have any idea how drastic changes were at Trent and how those changes were initially accepted. Probably not. I wonder if some folks alive at the time considered the Tridentine liturgy as something unrecognizable. Any significant change will have that effect.

Change in the eastern liturgy? I think most of the east considers itself fortunate to not have a pope. There is a price to pay for investing all authority in one office. The eastern liturgies could be changed, but it would take a pan-Orthodox council. The patriarchs are very turf conscious and getting them to agree on anything would take an act of God. Most differences of opinion in the east have little to do with liturgy and it is not seen as an issue.

the problems are much deeper than whether a parish uses Palestrina or Haugen

Yes

...and no amount of Gregorian Chant can fix that.

I respectfully disagree, or at least, claim that we are not in a position to know.

One very small, tiny, teensy, example: Recently I've had the occasion (twice, now) to serve as cantor in a church where, I strongly suspect, chant had never yet been heard, and I was in the unusual position of choosing the music with very little oversight from the priest. So, among other things, I chanted the propers. Several people from that parish have approached me and asked more about it, the tradition of the Church, etc.

Are they going to return to their pastor and demand an EF mass? A radical overhaul in how they approach the OF? Of course not. Prior to their approaching me, they didn't even know that such a thing as the EF existed...

But that's how it starts. Speaking solely for myself, I will not dismiss the possibility of positive long-term effects of introducing a bit of our Church's tradition back into the mass. I understand and feel the motives for cynicism, but I refuse to go there.

. imitating Jackson here. LOL. Double post for some reason.

The rubrics of the "new" rite of the Roman Church forbid the silent canon, and the books themselves presume an entirely vernacular liturgy. (Two strikes against them, there.)

That silent canon was condemned as far back as the reign of Justinian. It was an aberration from the earliest times.

"Vernacular tongue only..." But it didn't say the mass could never be celebrated in the vernacular. Water with wine? I hadn't heard of that being disputed.

One of the things with the Tridentine Reforms is that is didn't relegate ALL Latin usages to the dustbin of Liturgical history, as did the Novus Ordo Missae. What it did do is abolish local accretions without completely changing the Order of Mass: the order of Mass was still the same. That's the issue with the Novus Ordo: it was not a slight revision of the Traditional Missal to remove accretions less than 200 years old, it was a completely NEW ORDER OF MASS, which wiped away, intentionally, a complete family of Rites that had existed at least since around the year AD 800.

That silent canon was condemned as far back as the reign of Justinian. It was an aberration from the earliest times.

Which, conversely, means that the silent canon was by 1562 a hollowed custom of the Latin Rite. The silent canon could be discussed during the reign of Justinian; after Trent solemnly spoke, it was a moot point: anathema sit.

I could say the same thing: but the Immaculate Conception was denied as far back as the time of St. Thomas Aquinas, and before. But it doesn't matter, the Church has spoken, if today, in 2015, I deny the Immaculate Conception, I am a heretic; if I condemn the silent today, in 2015, I am anathematized.

ClemensRomnus: what is the exact context of that quotation form Jungmann? Did the Bugnini-committee simply adopt a draft proposal of an 'Ordo Missae' from the Papal MC?

It should be noted that Trent's anathema re the canon is very limited, and current practice doesn't run afoul of it.

Trent not only didn't anathematize the use of the vernacular in the Roman rite (it only anathematized those who condemned the use of Latin) actually allowed Rome to permit the use of the vernacular, and it was allowed for a while in the Roman rite in central Europe in the wake of Trent.

All of these comments about the 'superiority' ... of Latin over English just sound like so much sour grapes to me. After Vatican II, the Mass was changed. Deal with it.
- @bhcordova

Oh yeah, I forgot about those changes that Sacrosanctum Concilium asked for in No. 36.1.

Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

Oh wait, it didn't say that Latin should be abandoned. My bad. Continue on.

CharlesW

Sequences, tropes, rites not at least 200 years old - yes there were changes. How drastic is up to one's own point of view. Also, strict regulation of texts, books, and every liturgical detail, most likely, to keep Protestant influences out of the liturgy. The aim of Trent was standardization in the face of that Protestant influence.

I have seen your comments on the Trent reforms, a few questions,
Can you name the Rites suppressed by Trent? (I have never seen a list)
How many Sequences were suppressed by Trent? N.B. The Trent reforms did not apply to the following Rites, Dominican, Sarum, Ancient Gallican, Ambrosian, Mozabaric etc. I note that the sequences used by the Benedictine use remained.
Having seen the vast number of Sequences listed in the Analecta Hymnica would it not be fair for some of these to be suppressed if they had not already fallen out of use?
The Sarum Rite would have continued using its Tropes, I presume the Rites / uses in Germany would also have continued. Do you have a list of places that Tropes were suddenly suppressed.
How long did it take for the Trent Missal to work its way across Europe?

I am told that the Rite in use in Rome before Trent only used the Sequences as found in the Trent Missal. I presume this Rite also did not use Tropes.

While I will agree that the Trent Missal should have contained more Sequences although from my research local Propers add around another 20 Sequences! I am not that sad to see Tropes disappear. I also think having Universal or Standard texts to be a good thing. I will also suggest that the Trent Missal has served the Church well.

Interesting that something is only infallible for half of Church

Every time the Latins have a council, they think it is ecumenical and infallible. They can't be ecumenical since the entire church is not present. I suspect they may be infallible for the Latin church. If they address nothing pertaining to the east, then they can't be infallible for anyone but themselves. Referring to Trent specifically, Trent addressed Protestantism and its effects on the Latin church. The east was trying to survive Islam and didn't care what the Protestants were doing. Protestants were the west's battle.

From the bit of research I did, it seems that the Eastern Churches didn't begin to reunite with the Holy See until the mid-eighteenth century. Unless I'm much mistaken, schismatics are not part of the Church, and they therefore have no right in an ecumenical council. There was no need for Orthodox Bishops to be present at Trent since they weren't part of the Catholic Church.

Actually, it was the late 16th century for some of the Russian and Ukrainian churches to reunite with Rome.

Paul VI and Athenagoras mutually lifted all the anathemas of 1054, both east and west. You say schism, Paul VI and Athenagoras said both are the church of Jesus Christ, but not yet in full communion. There's that Latin superiority showing again. You folks sure are full of yourselves. LOL.

Not even all the western bishops were present at Trent. Vatican II came closer than Trent to being ecumenical.

I have often thought it could have changed the course of history if the empire and churches had stayed together. I believe together they could have handled both Protestantism and Islam successfully.

The Russians don't always even recognize the Greeks. LOL. They are genuinely an entity unto themselves.

4. Follow the GIRM - don't we wish everyone did?

I had picked up my Sarum info from Fr. Joseph R. Valentine, FSSP. He said:

When William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066, he brought his own Norman bishops with him, including St. Osmund who was established as Archbishop of Salisbury. It was he who combined the French Gallican style of worship with the Anglo-Saxon and Celtic traditions to form the Sarum Rite; the unique Mass of English Catholics.
The Sarum Rite was very similar to the Roman (some scholars claim that it should not be called a separate “rite” at all, but merely a local variation of the Roman Mass) with the addition of elaborate ceremonies and long poetic prayers borrowed from the French Church.
In the 16th Century when Henry VIII and Elizabeth I banned the Catholic religion, they naturally banned the Sarum Liturgy too. During the centuries of persecution, the underground English Catholic Church was kept alive by the work and sacrifices of the Jesuits and, since the Jesuits always used the Tridentine Missal exclusively, the Sarum Rite disappeared entirely (although, ironically, some of the unique Sarum prayers were preserved in the Protestant Anglican service books). In recent years, the Rite has been revived by a Western-Rite Orthodox monastery in Texas(!)
One unusual feature of the Sarum Mass is the Liturgical colors; The priests wore red vestments most of the Sundays of the year, dark blue during Advent, White during Lent, and yellow for feast days of Confessor saints.

The link for the article on non-Roman rites is here.

http://www.jolietlatin.org/Texts/Latin Rites.html

My understanding is that the English church was thoroughly infected with Protestantism by the time England pulled away from Rome.

I think the post-Tridentine changes to the non-Roman Latin rites are not good. It violates their distinct characters.

Agreed. I think some of that is being corrected which is a good thing.

The priests wore red vestments most of the Sundays of the year, dark blue during Advent, White during Lent, and yellow for feast days of Confessor saints.

Wow. Fascinating (please note lack of purple). Do we know the significance of each of these colors?

Here's my guess:

Red is the color of Pentecost in the Roman Rite, so could the Sarum use it as a reminder of the missionary nature of the Church and her liturgy in particular?

Dark Blue might be related to Our Lady, I suppose. It would depend on the hue.

White --- for purity, since Lent is a season of purification.

Yellow -- this color is a mystery to me. Is it, perhaps, a nearly-perfect white, as if to suggest that confessors were undergoing a kind of purification (see Lent) but that it was a lesser one than that endured by martyrs?


Remembering that at that time there was not merely a symbolic, but also a practical reason for many matters liturgical, what was the practical reason for each color? White was hard to create -- or, at least, pure white was. Dark Blue might be a form of purple?

It would be interesting to know - and I don't know - when the western liturgical colors came into widespread use. Also, when did the seasonal designations for colors come into existence.

In the east, vestments are designated as either bright or dark, with no set or forbidden colors.

The blue thing is widely misunderstood thanks to Anglicans. It was definitely not Marian...

Green is the color of the Spirit in the East (even if there are no strict regulations). So too at Sarum for Pentecost (I am 90% sure of this), and it is for the Roman Rite less directly, given its usage after Pentecost and Epiphany. You wore either the prescribed color or your best set on the high feasts which could have been blue, which was more expensive than gold.

Books have been written about the Liturgical Colours, I think NLM has had articles as well, but a quick search finds the following,

http://www.lms.org.uk/resources/articles-on-the-mass/liturgical_colours

http://ordorecitandi.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/hooray-array.html

I will dig further, and / or go through my library for more information if needed.