Expanding a little on what I said above and on Mr Hawkins' citations just above, several things are obvious -

1. By authority of the council, the laity are to be taught to say (sing!) in Latin those parts of the mass that pertain to them. Authority to forbid, obstruct, or impede the council's wishes does not exist. This applies to the EF as well as the OF - in other words, it applies to The Roman Rite in all its forms.

2. By authority of the council, plainchant is to be fostered and cultivated. Authority to forbid, obstruct, or impede the council's wishes does not exist. This applies to whichever language given chant is sung in.

3. One could list numerous other liturgical and musical examples that, by authority of the council are to be normative in the Church's worship. Authority to forbid, impede, ignore, or obstruct them does not exist.

4. That makes all persons of all ranks, priests, prelates, laymen and women, who ignore, impede, obstruct, or forbid the council's clear intent tyrants who exceed their authority, use the power inherent in their position to advance their own illicit, non-authoritative, inauthentic, agenda rather than that of the recent oecumenical council, and are, therefore, objectively contrary to, in contempt of, outside of, what is lawful.

There are ways in which 'EF folk' are in breach of Vatican II, which applies to them as well as everyone else. There are plenty of 'OF folk' who are in even greater breach of Vatican II. And 'Rome', the mighty Vatican, is as guilty as everyone else because it has, for the most part, stood by and watched as pandemonium eruptued - either watched or responded by and large toothlessly.

_________________________________________________________

Taken, then, at face value, it may justly be said that the EF is, by far, a theologically richer form of the Roman rite than the OF. Insofar, though, as the people are excluded from voicing those parts of the mass 'that pertain to them', those in authority are remiss, and the people very poorly catechised as to the whys and wherefores, expressed by pope and council, for them to enter fully into the action of the mass. The degree to which this shortcoming continues to be indulged and even cultivated falsely as inherent to the rite represents a purposeful disregard of the council and a calumny. The EF is not a world unto itself, and those who treat it as such do it and the Church a great disservice.

Taken, also then, at face value, it may justly be said that the OF is less theologically rich than the EF, but it is a far cry from the 'Protestant communion service' which its detractors would have us believe it to be. If its goal had been, as some say, to be palatable to Protestants, it has failed miserably in that regard. Protestants are not beating a path to become Catholic in the droves that some are said to have envisioned. Though I see sloppy worship habits and poorly catechised people, I see no shortage of devotion at OF masses, no irreverence (quite the contrary!) in the admittedly unfortunate 'communion lines'. Let it be said again - the fault is the grave disorder in our seminaries and the sort of formation they imparted to several generations of priests, as well as poorly (very poorly!) taught youth in our educational system, not to mention the theological incompetency of their teachers. The fault does not lie, inherently, in the OF, as is gloriously evident at the numerous churches at which it is celebrated with all due dignity and splendour.

It is a sorrowful pity that the Tridentine rite was not revised somewhat, maybe simplified a little, and put into English. It is also sorrowful that the Vatican stood by helpless (as did most priests and bishops) as liturgical havoc erupted in our churches. Nothing can be done about that, though, at this point - other than patiently to catechise, rebuild, convert those who shouldn't need conversion but do. We have many up-coming priests for whom to be thankful, who will make a great difference in the next several generations. All is not hopeless. Indeed, there is much cause for Hope - and cause for a Te Deum in thanksgiving for the gifts it has in store.

As for the Ordinariates - if I may say so humbly, we are grateful that we get our cake and eat it too. We are not too much different from what should have happened throughout the Church right after the council.

MJO all that is well and good, but it doesn't explain the formation of a brand new book for the Mass. If all of that was true, then there wouldn't be a need to write a Novus Ordo Missae in the first place.

It is a sorrowful pity that the Tridentine rite was not revised somewhat, maybe simplified a little, and put into English.

Quo Primum forbade revision to the Mass. Also, the 22nd Session of the Council of Trent forbade what you are suggesting, with anathema attached (emphasis mine):

CANON IX.--If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.

If the authority to forbid, impede, ignore, nor obstruct the decrees of the Second Vatican Council does not exist, then neither does the authority to forbid, impede, ignore, or obstruct the decrees of the Council of Trent.

Quo Primum is another matter because it was an instruction (Papal Bull) written by Pope Pius V. The argument, citing the Roman principles, is that an equal has no power over an equal, so no Pope can bind another Pope. However, there has been much discussion on the topic, and some theologians, such as Fr. Gregory Hesse contend that yes, one Pope can truly bind another, even in perpetuity, as did Quo Primum. To get the complete information on that, one would have to examine Fr. Hesse's lecture on the topic. Personally, I think it's significant that the documents that appear in the front of the Missale Romanum (Quo Primum, etc.) DO NOT APPEAR in the front of the missal for the Mass of Paul VI.

Lovely eddies on Quo Primum. In the end, it don't matter.

This is all very fascinating, and I'm always amazed at the degree of research, knowledge, experience and emotion that come into these discussions over liturgy and rite. At minimum, this proves how intimately critical this matter is to every soul...

I simply want to reiterate, simply and clearly, my particular input on the original question, that of the seeming sense of something spiritually "missing" in the NO.

Based on the facts of history (again, read Michael Davies and others) and of personal experience, I would say the following: while it is certainly valid and can be done with great reverence and solemnity, still the NO was intentionally designed to appeal to Protestants, and in the "option" that gets defaulted to in the majority of cases, is objectively much less stimulating to the senses and the spirit than the Tridentine.

"But no one here, I think, claims that the NO satisfactorily fulfils the changes requested by SC."

Um, don't extrapolate that from silence, it's just that's not the issue being discussed.

Well, that was what would be called a finesse in other contexts. A read of it a decade ago was that it was B16's way of avoiding an overtly muscular approach in this regard; that said, note what SP doesn't say. If the 1947 edition of the Missal, not green-lighted by SP, is not at least superceded, then that arguably goes for the 1970 and 1974 editions, too. I suspect B16 was quite aware of the sticky wicket here, and chose a very discreet path and was arguing as minimally as possible. (The problem is that many others haven't felt a need for such discretion or think it was poorly applied.)

For a what might be called a metaview: the more time one spends trying to come up with silver-bullet arguments to "win" for one's own "side", one is wasting time and effort. It's a sometimes noble temptation. But a temptation it remains. Right now, enthusiasts for the ritual of the preconciliar missal have the opportunity to cultivate and elicit more *positive attraction for* it; it's not a great sign if increasing effort is spent on argument against the conciliar reforms. I sense that, before SP, there was a lot of effort on the negative arguments, and with the advent of SP, more effort was made for positive attraction given the expanded opportunity. But there seems to be a slide back to devoting more energy to negative arguments, not only because of a change in pontificates (with liturgy discussions being proxy for other things), but also because peoples' expectations were not satisfied. (Which also illustrates the difference between hope and expectation.)

AFH

I am aware of the Agatha Christie indult. It's just not a universal solvent for the situation.

"Surely, history has no greater example of duplicity on such a grand scale."

Oh, I seriously doubt that.

Cardinal Heenan, I think, obeyed through gritted teeth, and obtained a couple of local concessions. I would guess that if he could see that Ottaviani and allies could not derail it, he was better off with getting loopholes. (He also maintained choir schools at Westminster and Liverpool, despite strenuous objections from some of his clergy)

this is not what the council advocated, we will not have this

You are right, of course, but I was literally there--in the room--when my pastor caved in to the zeitgeist. He just wasn't going to fight City Hall about that AND everything else they were throwing (and threatening to throw) at him.

Elmar,

There are many reasons for people in EF "communities" to be skittish. At some level, these reasons make sense -- but I don't share most of them.

The biggest one which makes sense to me is this one: "IF we intermarry with OF folks, will we have to accept .....(the Pony Mass, girl altar boys, the wreckovation of our churches)....

I tend to think of it differently, though. SO long as my hands aren't tied behind my back, a bandana placed in a gagging position in my mouth and a crown of silliness placed on my head, interaction under one roof can lead to the evangelization of those who attend the OF.

We EF denizens are bad people. Can we move on now?

Arthur,

You should have added that we're all doctors of the law, rigid, hateful people who don't accompany anyone.... and we hate young people who, as a result, never attend the "outdated" form.

And you can quote as an authority on that opinion His Holiness, Pope Francis.

holy cow yall... i haven't had a chance to post my post... but it really is rediculous that we have to defend the EF. Actually, I call it the VO... EF is the term invented for (and by) post SP Catholics.

MJO

I am honored that you would await my thinking... and certainly hope that someday we will meet in person.

What many question is the direction and degree of liturgical change. There isn't really one over arching argument for the current form of the Mass, but rather there are arguments for specific facets of liturgical reform that were incorporated into the current form of the mass. Some of those arguments seem reasonable, some seem rather suspect.

More fruitful discussion could be generated by a more specific question or questions. What is the argument for (insert specific aspect of the NO)? The current question is about as open and broad as asking what the arguments in favor of the US Constitution are (the short answer to that being the complete Federalist papers, and that only as a starting point). Fruitful research, discussion, and debate could be had on a more specific question, including a clearer comparison and contrast of the current two forms of the Roman Rite.

I think an argument can be made for each of the elements of the EF and the NO, but so can an argument be made for (and against) the aspects of the liturgies of the Eastern churches, and of the western rites pre-Trent too. I am skeptical of people that claim to know the mind of God in regards to the specific details of worship that is most pleasing to Him. I am likewise skeptical of people that claim to know what form of worship is best (or even most popular) to the people.

What of articulating "form" for non-Gregorian/polyphonic settings of the ordinary?
It seems that "the one-size-fits-all must sing" formula is often quite wanting, particularly with the Holy. Could such be legislated?

I suspect Charles is obliquely complaining about the postconciliar shift in the understanding of the Sanctus-Benedictus (the which division is entirely an artifice of the preconciliar sung Mass) and that it is normatively sung by all, not just the schola, so that use of polyphonic settings that do no include some portion for the entire assembly to sing are not in accord with that norm as such.

But in NO the canon is not silent, so the division lost the reason it functionally developed.

I view that as a feature, not a bug.

Stimson offers a cogent perspective -

Verily, I think, we should all hie to the rite or use that offers each of us, as individuals, the spiritual blessings that we treasure most highly. We should do this without rancour or denigration of the other rites and uses which the Church has provided for us.

I think that if one can't carry on about the richness of the EF without reference to the ways in which the OF or the OU (Ordinariate Use) or the Eastern rites fall short, one is, incontrovertibly, engaged in liturgical snobbery and spiritual pride of a sort which rather puts one's own beloved rite or use into a negative, rather than a positive, light. Likewise, those who cherish the OF do not speak well of it if they can't eschew, in the same breath, denigrating the EF or other rites and uses. Negativity towards what one doesn't happen to cherish ineluctably represents a fundamentally spiritually immature person who really isn't at all as elevated as he or she would aspire to be. It is well to speak well of what one loves. It is also well, equally so, to appreciate what others love.

Taken at face value, each rite or use has its own beauty, whether it be in its patrimonial richness and ritual wealth, or in its relative simplicity, a simplicity which is pungent in its sharply focused ritual. It should not be lost sight of that each, the EF and the OF, as celebrated most commonly, fails to earn high marks for its accordance with the precepts of the IInd Vatican Council, to which all are subject. The OF because of very sloppy liturgics and regrettable music, the EF because the people do not enter into the liturgy itself (yea, are even discouraged from doing so!) except indirectly through personal devotions. Both are remiss, and inexcusably so. Neither can boast perfection. None can aver superiority or 'higher spirituality' who betray through their proudful patois that they are the opposite of what they wish to think that they are.

It should be understood clearly that, as of Vatican II, the OF is required to exhibit a retention of our musical heritage and a ritual praxis which reflects an historic pedigree, whilst the EF is required to exhibit the full, direct, participation of the people 'in those parts of the mass that pertain to them' - which means the actual saying or singing of the dialogues, the 'amens', and the ordinary. Until these precepts are met, neither has a finger to wag at the other. There shouldn't be the polarisation that exists here and there.

It seems to me, if I may say it with humility (I hope that I can), that the Ordinariate Use (and praxis) is the best of both worlds. I will not ever understand why something akin to it didn't evolve after the council. It seems so obvious.

I will not ever understand why something akin to it didn't evolve after the council. It seems so obvious.

Everything Anglican is obvious to the Anglican mind, is it not, Chickson? ;)

I've found a long time ago that, for all its foundation in jurisprudence and common sense, the Roman Church has an irrational element just hiding under its surface. I've also found that it can be a blessing as well as a curse. I've also found that this ineffable element, paradoxically, is what makes the TLM so accessible for a mind weaned on common sense.

I'd like to add - I'm not advocating for a sort of "fideist" approach to the liturgy. No liturgy was ever made in a vacuum. We need only consider how the Gallican rites of the first millennium affected the Roman rite to make it much more, exotic, shall we say? (Perhaps it's that irrational element I mentioned before.) It's just tenuous ground when you start justifying the practices of your liturgical use off of those of another rite entirely.

I was once advised that vocation is not an act of running away, it's a running towards something. I just think it would be wise to be able to articulate (to some degree) what it is that we're running towards. Besides, you know, God and stuff.

It's not that people can't enter the liturgy. It's that they won't. I mean, why try to follow the readings of a mass when you could just say your rosary/read the office/follow stations of the cross and so on?

Devotions shouldn't take the place of mass. Mass is a devotion in and of itself. Regarding the liceity of reciting the rosary during mass - this is okay, but it should be the exception to the rule. We all have times we come to mass and we don't have a missal or one isn't provided. Thankfully, this is becoming less and less the case in many places. But these instances still happen. In such cases, I'd have no problem with fingering the beads or reading out of some devotional book. But again - most people on this forum (I'm assuming!) know how to read. They have access to the translations of the propers of the mass. There should at least be some modicum of effort to unite your prayers with those of the mass. The fact that they aren't perfect should by no means be a detriment to the ability to strive for something higher.

To be clear, I am just as opposed to the idea that the congregation must do everything otherwise it isn't mass. I think the Clerge-man described it aptly when he described it as Protestant idea that mass doesn't happen when there's only the priest. Yes, there is a passive element to worship. But this element and actual participation are not mutually exclusive.

...Walking the tightrope of Gueranger, Pius X, and the Young Liturgical Movement crowd is not an easy feat.

Protestant idea that mass doesn't happen when there's only the priest

AFAIK current rules in both OF and EF insist that there must be someone to answer, and that the priest address himself to vos and fratres even if there is only one representative of the faithful. The Church is perhaps content that the whole communion of saints is present, and indeed the choirs of angels.

To Liam et al -


I said 'something akin to' - not wholesale mimicry.

No, I do not suggest that a wholesale imitation of all that is the best of the Anglo-Catholic, or Oxford Movement, heritage should have been adopted by the Church. This has never been my thrust. A sincere observation of the best in Anglican worship might, though, have been useful at least to Anglophone Catholicism - rather than the contemptuous and purposeful disregard of it that bore fruit in the greatest, most shameful, liturgical debacle that history ever did see. It was as if Catholics said, 'hmmm, the Anglicans do it nicely, therefore we must do it as tackily as it can be done'.

Just a few hallmarks which might have profited from a less contemptuous observation.

Vernacular liturgy - which the council permitted, but did not require. This resulted in the most laughable and unsingable 'translation' which anyone could have dreamed of.

Fine music both modern and ancient - which the council advocated, and was promptly 'forbidden' when everybody returned home.

A liturgical praxis which grows sensibly right out of historical precedent. One might logically have expected that Paul VI's mass would so develop. No, rather than even notice how Anglicans had been doing this for a very long time, Catholic hierarchs opted for the Ed Sullivan variety show liturgy whose noxious vapours will be wafting about for decades yet to come.

Active (when appropriate) participation of the people in those parts of the mass which pertain to them. Hmph! No Willans for our Catholics! The dregs of musical drivel are good enough for our people - heaven forbid that they should be given something of intrinsic merit.

To list only a few, these are the hallmarks of the council's vision for liturgy. They might have resembled the Ordinariate Use (because, ultimately, the Ordinariate Use resembles historic Catholic praxis!) when put into practice. This is not to say that I am advocating Anglican English or a wholesale imitation of inimitable Anglican ways. But these ways might have been somehow inspirational for a more sane realisation of the council's vision than the nightmare that, the more one thinks about it, is exactly what Catholic bishops and priests (for the most part) seem deliberately to have concocted.