Arguments for the NO Mass?
  • 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.
    Thanked by 1monscarmeli
  • Protasius
    Posts: 468
    The Faithful shall be taught to sing or say the parts of the Ordinary which pertain to them; however it is not mandated that they need to do so at every single Mass, which would exclude the use of all polyphonic Mass compositions and is thus obviously contradicting the mandate to preserve and enlarge the treasury of Church music.
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    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.
    Thanked by 2francis monscarmeli
  • francis
    Posts: 10,638
    I will post eventually, but much of my composition has been put
    forth by numerous others here.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,901
    Lovely eddies on Quo Primum. In the end, it don't matter.
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 1,019
    By authority of the council the people have the right and the just obligation to sing the ordinary and the dialogues, etc., regardless of rite or use, AT MASS.

    Maybe some of those who promote the EF block (or try to block) people from singing the ordinary and the responses (this has never been my experience, but that's another discussion) - but that's not the fault of the EF itself. It doesn't take a new rite of the mass to fix this problem - nor most of the other "supposed" problems" with the EF.
  • 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.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,337
    It would be tedious to point out all the revisions of Pius V Missal. Just note that he himself made an addition one year after Quo Primum, and that he did not envisage tabernacles being placed on altars, a later practice requiring significant ritual modifications. All these changes were promulgated by subsequent popes, as was the NO.
    But no one here, I think, claims has claimed in this thread [EDIT] that the NO satisfactorily fulfils the changes requested by SC.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,901
    "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.
    Thanked by 1a_f_hawkins
  • On June 27, MJ Osborn wrote:
    We do know what the council said about active inward and outward participation AT THE MASS. It did not say that the (yet to be permitted) EF was exempt.

    Taking exception to the comment that EF was "yet to be permitted" for a couple of reasons:

    1. While the Council was in session, 1962-65, what some now call "EF" was the ordinary form of the Roman Rite, so it was indeed permitted and presumably celebrated daily by the vast majority of Latin Rite council fathers. What is now called the Ordinary Form didn't yet exist.

    2. Further, in the 2007 motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum Pope Benedict wrote:
    It is therefore permitted to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal, which was promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Church’s Liturgy.

    In his letter to the bishops, Pope Benedict was even more explicit:

    As for the use of the 1962 Missal as a Forma extraordinaria of the liturgy of the Mass, I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted.

    Holding in highest esteem Pope Benedict's judgment, it would be very interesting to learn more detail about the non-abrogation in principle of the 1962 Missal, given my experience in the decades following the Council.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,901
    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.)
    Thanked by 1Elmar
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,337
    The 1962 was never totally prohibited everywhere, see this official letter (Prot. N. 1897/71), so there was some wriggle room.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,901

    I am aware of the Agatha Christie indult. It's just not a universal solvent for the situation.
  • Another accounting of the horrid liturgical revolution which followed the council is not needed here: we all know about it, and some of us lived through it (and, really, it is far from over), some of us observing it as horrified Anglo-Catholics who wouldn't touch 'Rome' with a ten foot pole. The men (and women!) behind it, though, provide examples of treachery, prevarication, deceit, and intrigue on a par with that of any Renaissance or Byzantine court. It would seem that what happened was exactly what our guardians of the faith wanted, which was the opposite of what they put into writing at the council.

    The really curious thing is that the world's bishops all gathered in Rome, they actually produced the documents of the council with which we are all conversant, documents that are replete with fine language about the cultivation of choirs, chant, organs, Latin, musical heritage, uplifting of the 'the people' into more profound participation, and so on and so forth, and then went home and ignored what they had produced, banished the very music, choirs, and organs that they wrote should be preserved and cultivated, lied about what the council actually didn't say, turned a blind eye to (if not aided and abetted) the desecration of Catholic worship, turned their seminaries over to iconoclastic dons, didn't bother to correct all those who poisoned the air with lies to the effect that 'the council did away with this, that, and the other...'. Nay, the bishops, guardians of truth, and the Vatican itself, did nothing to correct the poison and often even egged it on. Those who should have 'put their foot down' and supplied an antidote, who should have said 'this is not what the council advocated', did nothing. Surely, history has no greater example of duplicity on such a grand scale.
    Thanked by 2CCooze CHGiffen
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,901
    "Surely, history has no greater example of duplicity on such a grand scale."

    Oh, I seriously doubt that.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,496
    I'm pretty sure this is how committees work. By the end of the process everyone is just glad decisions have been made and we can all go home now.

    With VII though, the immediate reception was spun very hard by the liberal press. Instantaneous communication was an issue in a Council for the very first time, and the Church was not the party managing it.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,337
    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)
  • To sum up in a few words the import of what I wrote just above -
    None of us was born yesterday.
    We all know (don't we!?) where decisions are made in the Catholic Church...
    We all know that what happened after the council would not have happened if the bishops and priests had not wanted it to - either wanted it or meekly, spinelessly, acquiesced.
    If they had said 'this is not what the council advocated, we will not have this', then it wouldn't have happened - and! it wouldn't still be happening.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,211
    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
    Posts: 500
    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, [...] also because peoples' expectations were not satisfied.

    Experienced that in our parish.
    We have a small but stable EF group in our parish. Since 2007 our pastor helped re-establish EF masses in our country, organizing courses for priest to learn celebratin the old form of the rite, and laymen to become altar servers (I joined into the latter, after my initial reservation turned into enthousiasm).
    Our pastor said some five years ago that he was dreaming of our (NO) schola one day singing the EF High Mass in our church. I have never heard him saying this to our singers, or taking any other action towards this goal. Instead he serves our EF group in their apparent wish to be separate from, and invisible to, the parish community, and their conviction that their spirituality is superior to that of the 'ordinary' parishioners.
    I have not joined in their Monday mornig Low Mass (with sparse participation of the people in the dialogues) for years now ...
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • 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.
    Thanked by 1Elmar
  • ...conviction that their spirituality is superior...

    A sure sign that it isn't!
    A sure sign of the poisonous vapors of spiritual pride.

    Of someone who boasted that he or she was wise we would know that he or she wasn't.
    Of someone who averred that his or her spirituality was superior we would know that we were talking to a spiritual infant.
    Thanked by 2a_f_hawkins Elmar
  • We EF denizens are bad people. Can we move on now?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,927
    We EF denizens are bad people

    Yes you are. Here's hoping you become more charitable and socialized.
    Thanked by 1StimsonInRehab
  • 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.
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    Heaven forbid we should forgo the customary and age-old tradition from time immemorial that we shake hands with each other before Mass and have a brief social period before the opening sign of the cross to make everyone feel "welcome".
    Thanked by 2PaxTecum cesarfranck
  • And you can quote as an authority on that opinion His Holiness, Pope Francis.
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    Well, yeah, it's how the early Christians celebrated the Mass, right along side the Universal Prayer, FCAP, blow-the-doors-off-the-church (or the rock off the cave?) congregational singing, and versus populum. You can find all of that in those primary sources Josef Jungmann apparently had access to, but we can't find anymore.
    Thanked by 1francis
  • francis
    Posts: 10,638
    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.
    Thanked by 1Casavant Organist
  • I haven't had a chance...

    I, for one, am waiting with bated breath for Francis to post his post. One thing of which we can be assured is that it will be an apologia for the EF, and, likely, an excoriation of the NO - not (as is the title of this thread) 'Arguments for the NO Mass?' But that's alright. We should know by now that most of our threads follow, not the method of dissertations, but the patterns of normal conversational wanderings, which is just fine. Francis? We await your post.

    I might suggest that an 'Argument for the NO Mass' is not ipso facto an argument against the EF, nor vice versa. Both are legitimate and have their distinctive, very Catholic, aestheses and spritual depths. The wise ones will perceive the merits of each. And, there are ways in which each one of them is not normally celebrated in conformity to the precepts of Vatican II, to which both are subject.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,638

    I am honored that you would await my thinking... and certainly hope that someday we will meet in person.
  • Well, um, I (we) am/are still waiting.
    Or is this a ghost of a post?
  • 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.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,337
    StephenMatthew: Yes but, an inexhaustible question, and not this forum.
    Fortunately few here claim to know the mind of God, what they/we mostly argue about is the mind of the church, and disagree about that.
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    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'm not certain, Charles, what you are suggesting.
    Please, no legislation.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,901
    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.
    Thanked by 1melofluent
  • obliquely

    Indeed. I had to re-read his post after reading your explanation to see that you are, in fact, correct.

    the understanding of the Sanctus-Benedictus (the which division is entirely an artifice of the preconciliar sung Mass

    Isn't this the problem with much of the Ordo of Paul VI ... that everything of a previously common form is deemed artifice, regardless of why it existed? (Take as evidence of the lack of artifice in this regard the Anglican custom of writing Sanctus and Benedictus as distinct movements.)
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,901
    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.

  • StimsonInRehabStimsonInRehab
    Posts: 1,910
    I'll say this, and everyone knows where I stand in this issue. *cough cough God bless the SSPX cough cough*

    I don't necessary the problem lies entirely with justifying the NO. Those who support the usus antiquor have one major issue that they have to contend with, and I've known many religious who exclusively celebrate the Old Mass who will admit to it - coming up with an argument for the TLM on its own intrinsic merits, without reference whatever to the NO.

    I mean, there's only so many times you can say "I celebrate the old mass because it's more holy/symbolically richer/cooler/produced more saints than etc. the new mass." It's easy to get into a theology of comparison. Not that one need be blind to problems which may creep into forms of worship besides one's one, of course - but the traditional community as a whole hasn't (at least as I can tell; I'd be happy to be proven wrong by anyone of course) come up with convincing apologetics for their charism that aren't a reaction to abuses. Doing so I think would go a long way to making it more palatable to people who generally aren't "grumpy trads".
    Thanked by 1Elmar
  • 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.
    Thanked by 2Elmar CHGiffen
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    I for one would like to counter the idea that people can't "enter into the liturgy" in the TLM. I'm not even entirely sure what the statement is alluding to. I find the opposite to be true: the TLM is easier for me to "enter into," because I find it very easy to pray and contemplate the mysteries (per the charism of the Carmelites).

    I agree wholeheartedly with Stimson: advocates of the TLM must find a way to present their case without comparison to the NO.
  • StimsonInRehabStimsonInRehab
    Posts: 1,910
    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.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,901
    It's pretty obvious to me: none of the major Catholic nations (the USA's Catholicism was extremely dominated by the Irish, of course) outside the Iron Curtin was Anglophile. If anything, quite the contrary. Anglican liturgy was associated with a country that was intensely anti-Catholic for much of Anglicanism's history.

    Imagine it's Boston, Massachusetts circa 1965: don't expect Cardinal Cushing to wax misty and warm at the thought that Anglicanism is the proper measure of a Roman liturgy in English. (More likely to spit out his drink.)

    Anglicanism had its own baggage.
  • StimsonInRehabStimsonInRehab
    Posts: 1,910
    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.
  • StimsonInRehabStimsonInRehab
    Posts: 1,910
    Here's hoping you become more charitable and socialized.

    Next you'll be asking us to apologize for voting for Trump. :-S

  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,337
    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.
    Thanked by 1StimsonInRehab
  • StimsonInRehabStimsonInRehab
    Posts: 1,910
    Hawkins, your post almost inspired me to write an equivocal response about a congregation consisting of the deaf and dumb, but I've really hit my quota for Helen Keller "scenarios", so I'll pass.

    (I'm in a strange mood this afternoon, folks. Apologies if it comes through in my posts.)
  • 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.
  • StimsonInRehabStimsonInRehab
    Posts: 1,910
    An aside, Chickson - what would it take to get the Ordinariate to offer the Sarum Use on a regular basis? I think we can all get behind THAT project!