Chris probably takes for granted the normative state of the Solemn High Mass, hence his comment doesn’t reflect the practice of Low Mass. And if I speak for him in error, I still like to think it’s a good principle... In fact, I think for some of us, seeing the solemn Latin liturgy as the norm for the Pauline liturgy helped us see the importance (though not the end-all, be-all) of congregational chanting. What Dr. Mahrt’s parish has actually put into practice
is more appreciated (on this forum, I can’t let the point escape without mentioning Julie Coll’s vision of robust congregational chanting). We can’t dismiss it nor take it for granted. The former plagues traditionally minded Catholics, especially in the TLM world, the latter led to the loss of chant after the council. (I think of the Low Countries and France.)

I find myself thinking mutual enrichment is really just celebrating the rite as it ought to be celebrated. Along with prayer and reading of the rite’s history and development, the rest will come.

A few textual things, e.g. the prefaces of different kinds of saints, would be good, but I also don’t think taking the new text is necessarily best (if older books –the Gallican rite being where we have historically acquired new prefaces in recent decades– have one, I say take that one).


Arthur, there is a restriction on singing direct translations, so they would have to be sung at Low Mass at another point in the liturgy.

I wonder what new Latin textual compositions have been made in more recent times, from the liturgy and devotional prayers. Surely Latin composition of prayers didn’t stop at the Counter-Reformation.

Except, we actually have to get the ancient hymns back and not the Dom Lentini revisions or modifications.

So I would strongly disagree that Te Lucis is better for the change; only the doxology needed changing (the Urban hymn uses the form from the hymn at Prime).

EF matins readings could be better.
Aside from all the many readings from V2 documents (which are fine for what they are, and should certainly be read, but maybe not as part of the liturgy and probably not placed on the same level as Church Fathers) I think OF Office of Readings (with the traditional office hymns, and minus the goofy psalm-prayers) has been a good thing.

Arthur,

Yes, I knew that about Low Mass. I was trying to aim for mutual enrichment, not mutual impoverishment, and vernacular hymns at Low Mass - quite legal - represent an impoverishment on two scores: we're not singing the Gregorian propers, and we're not engaging all the senses.

Matthew,

When His Holiness speaks of mutual enrichment, he doesn't seem to mean "Follow Fr. Zuhlsdorf's principle: "Say the Black, Do the Red". He seems to mean that more depth of riches can be found in each rite.... and so the question is (at least, in my mind) what from OF will enrich the EF, and vice versa.

Since you mention a few new prefaces, could I generalize your comment to say this: excellently composed new prayers (such as, for example, the feast of St. Pio of Pietrelcino, or excellent propers composed for the feast of Divine Mercy) could avoid the current situation of using the common for a virgin martyr for more virgin martyrs? Fair enough, but can those prayers be sought in the current OF, either Latin or English, or would they need to be newly composed?

Vilyanor,

When you say,

I think it's almost universally accepted that the Urban revisions were terrible,

I think it would be fairer to say that in most places, Pope Urban is utterly unknown, and his revisions of the hymns is still more mysteriously shrouded. Could you explain in more detail so that newbies around here can get up to speed more quickly?

The responses after the Epistle and Gospel (Deo Gracias/Laus Tibi), and the Pater Noster by the congregation would be an enrichment of the EF. Some OF masses (in Latin) also chant the Orate Fratres and the Ecce Agnus, with chanted responses. This, too, would be an enrichment. Where the EF uses the Confiteor before communion, the congregation could chant with the subdeacon. All would contribute to greater solemnity.

Oh second thought, Roborgelmeister's idea of more congregational participation is within the bounds of existing rubrics. In addition to his suggestions, the priest can recite the Ordinary with the choir instead of privately.

Oh, good point. The secreta could be chanted like the Collect.

I applaud this thread and hope to see more dialogue about mutual enrichment between the forms of the Roman rite. It's interesing to see that there appears to be a growing online tension between OF and EF Catholics so perhaps it's time to explore whether it's possible for there to be more liturgical unity among Catholics of the Roman rite?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2016/01/can-you-be-a-happy-traddy.html

http://ncronline.org/blogs/faith-and-justice/catholic-story-conservative-vs-progressive

Frankly speaking, I don't either, and it's not clear that textual changes were what Pope Benedict envisioned when he spoke of mutual enrichment.

From what I can tell after reading many times his momentous speech in Oct., 1998, ten Years after the Motu Proprio, then-Cardinal Ratzinger proposed that the implementation of the "essential criteria" of Sacrosanctum Concilirum" was the best way to resolve the tension between the two forms of the Roman rite. Cardinal Sarah recently echoed this thought by declaring that Sacrosanctum Concilium ought to be the Magna Carta of every liturgical action in the Roman rite.

I think the reasons for the tension between the two forms of the Roman rite go much deeper than the difference in texts and ceremonies. The strain is partly due to the opposing perceptions of the liturgy among Catholics. Cardinal Ratzinger said, "It seems to me that the dislikes we have mentioned are as great as they are because the two forms of celebration are seen as indicating two different spiritual attitudes, two different ways of perceiving the Church and the Christian life."

Then-Cardinal Ratzinger described the two different attitudes:

How the average OF Catholic views the Mass:
:
"The average Christian considers it essential for the renewed liturgy to be celebrated in the vernacular and facing the people; that there be a great deal of freedom for creativity; and that the laity exercise an active role therein."

How the average EF Catholic views the Mass:

"On the other hand, it is considered essential for a celebration according to the old rite to be in Latin, with the priest facing the altar, strictly and precisely according to the rubrics, and that the faithful follow the Mass in private prayer with no active role."

Text of Cardinal Ratzinger's address here.

Julie,

I'll pick up on Then-Cardinal Ratzinger's last comments, as you posted them.

Since the Missal itself prohibits the use of the vernacular by priest or people in prescribed texts, and since deliberate violation of the rubrics was seen (and taught as) a mortal sin, the first two parts of what he said are absolutely correct. Many people who are re-attached to the EF do see the laity's role as "private prayer", but those who encounter it for the first time don't usually have this approach.

We can pray at Mass, true, but we're supposed to pray the Mass. Our level of interior involvement will vary from person to person -- since we're not automatons. If we misunderstand "active" the way the wreckovators intend it to be misunderstood, then certainly the laity have "no active role", but if we understand the expression according to the mind of the Church, our active participation may not be discernible to the senses -- but it's there anyway.

Julie,

Absolutely! Pope Pius X tells us to pray the Mass, not merely pray at Mass. Pius XII tells us that it is wrong-headed (not his word) if we expected everyone to participate in exactly the same way and to exactly the same degree. Such wisdom from the popes urges us to strive after devout love of God and complete emersion in the sacramental act, the public worship of the Church, and also recognizes that our responses to grace will vary. Mere activity isn't actuosa participatio.