Solemn and not so solemn
  • CatherineS
    Posts: 36
    I rarely attend the OF on Sundays or feasts; weekdays I usually going to a very early morning OF Mass that is without any music. But today is St. Anthony's day (very big devotion at this particular parish) and I went to the big evening Mass, and I was quite fascinated by the whole thing. It seems to me that there isn't actually a difference in the liturgy between the weekday morning and the Big Saint's Feast. There are just various 'elaborations' added. So for instance there is incense instead of no incense, and a procession to the altar instead of no procession, and several musicians instead of no musicians, and six singers instead of no singer, and lots of children standing around the altar instead of no children, and a few seminarians holding things instead of none, and more priests instead of one, and more ministers and a bigger congregation. BUT, there is no actual difference in what is said, in what order, with what words, nor in who says it, nor even in the singing. There was a sung vernacular Sanctus, and six pleasant hymns (the usual four plus a few extras where there was time). The parish priest sang (chanted) the Gospel in the vernacular. The only other music was a hearty sung "Amen" at one point (forget when) and a vernacular "Alleluia" song (it has verses) before and after the Gospel reading. It was all a bit creative, but intended to be more inspiring, reverent and solemn than usual.

    So my question is, is there just one rite no matter what the degree of solemnity? And are there actually any rubrics for more-solemnity versus less-solemnity? It all seems startlingly free-form compared to the specificity of the EF.

    It was all quite sweet - the people love the saint, and the children were adorable, the priests love their sheep, and there are many serious fish to fry, so I'm not complaining, but I'm trying to get a better understanding as to how things were intended to work, and where one can find any relevant instructions/guidelines.

    If there's a particular document that gives guidelines for this, please refer! I'm studying but don't recall seeing mention of this particular subject yet.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,087
    I have been told there is one mass with differing degrees of solemnity. How that bears out in most parishes, I don't know.
    Thanked by 1CatherineS
  • CatherineS
    Posts: 36
    "Variably" perhaps? ;)
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,517
    This webpage lists how we deal with the different levels of solemnity at the Cathedral:
    https://simonjude.org/sacred-music-program
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 5,880
    I am no fan of so-called 'graduating (or whatever the favoured word is) solemnity'. The solemn form of the mass, OF or EF, is, while not normal, normative. Just as singing is not adding to the liturgy, but, rather, not singing is taking something away from it, so is it with incense, a great flock of servers, sung readings, choirs and music, and all. The presence of these is normative, and the absence of any or all of these is a denuding of the mass, EF or OF, of its glory. Nor do I accept that all is rosy with the EF while the old OF 'invites' all manner of abuse and simplification. Let us not overlook that the EF, likewise, admits of various degrees of solemnity, each degree being prettily called 'low mass', missa cantata, solemn mass, high mass, solemn high mass, pontifical mass, solemn pontifical mass, and missa this, that, and the other. I have the impression that most people, EF or OF, prefer the 'low mass' option. (Yes, there's that dirty little word, 'options', and both EF and OF have them and use them liberally.)
  • MarkB
    Posts: 26
    I can only speak from OF experience on this topic. But in my experience, greater solemnity at Mass just means more "liturgical ministers" than usual doing more elaborate and different or fancier musical and liturgical things than usual without changing the structure of the Mass, and almost always includes a party in the hall after Mass, which is sometimes a bigger deal than the Mass.

    If you want to view Masses supposedly celebrated with "greater solemnity" that are actually more parodies of Mass, you should watch some videos of Masses celebrated at the annual Los Angeles Religious Education Congress in Anaheim. Many are online to choose from. In the minds of the liturgy committee that plans those things, "greater solemnity" equals: liturgical dance, music in five languages, music in every style except rap, four cantors, spotlights, dressing the altar in about a dozen different ethnic blankets, and turning just about every transition into an elaborately choreographed procession that lasts five times longer than it needs to or should.
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 5,880
    The Peragallo organ at the Cathedral of SS Simon and Jude, referenced above by Matthew, is featured in the current issue of 'The American Organist'. It is quite a bold instrument, though I am disappointed to see so-called 'digital' stops being used by a major reputable builder. The incorruptable are becoming fewer and fewer.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,145
    The O.F. doesn't solemnize readily. There really are no ceremonial differences between a regular "parish Mass", a Pontifical Mass or a Papal Mass. Because the Propers of the Mass are no longer required, and can be replaced by hymns, there is rarely a distinction made between even Low Mass and High Mass. It seems the only requirement for a "Solemn Mass" in the O.F. are a dozen pointless concelebrants and a brass quintet, and maybe a poorly-formed permanent deacon or two.

    To really get a Missa Solemnis in the O.F. you need to try to incorporate as much E.F. ceremonial as is possible, but then that can beg the question : Why not just use the E.F.?
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • CatherineS
    Posts: 36
    Matthew, that's lovely.

    To add: were you involved in setting up that structure?
  • Incardination
    Posts: 351
    Sorry, MJO, I must disagree most heartily with your viewpoint.

    A) what is "normative" is what can be found in most parishes. In the EF, that would have been the Low Mass until some point relatively early in the last century, when it would have become (certainly in England and the U.S. at least) the Missa Cantata. Now-a-days, it depends on the resources of the parish and can vary between what's available for Sundays / Holy Days vs. what's available during the weekdays.

    B) the degrees of solemnity are not "options" like "what coat shall I wear today", and there are only four for the EF (presumably you were somewhat tongue in cheek when you presented your list). It isn't like most parishes have a bishop waiting in the wings but choose to do the Low Mass as an "option" because that's what people "prefer". Nor is it a matter of simply throwing in "extras" when one feels like it. One absolutely cannot use incense at a Low Mass, for example, as if it is simply an "extra". Conversely, one must use incense at a Solemn Mass because it is a requirement, not an option. It doesn't matter that Sally Jane is allergic to the incense - it is a required part of that form of Mass.

    The degrees of solemnity are intended to convey more honor and glory to God. All things being equal, we'd rather have a Solemn Mass than a Low Mass... but many times those resources are missing, whether the ministers (more usual) or those with sufficient knowledge to sing the required parts of Mass as the Liturgical Choir, or less commonly, those who could be the altar servers.

    Regardless of the form, the most important aspect is the Mass itself - what it represents. Not the music, not the incense, not the ministers, not the altar boys - in short, not the externals. To use Stein... the Mass is the Mass is the Mass (regardless of the externals). Is the bread and wine "less" transubstantiated at a Low Mass than at a Pontifical High? Is the Sacrifice "less" at a Low Mass than a Missa Cantata? Hmmm. I think not.
    Thanked by 2Carol WillWilkin
  • CatherineS
    Posts: 36
    I still would love any kind of reference to some sort of official guidelines, if such exist. Or would the guidelines for the EF still be in force, technically? Does anyone know of anything?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,087
    It is quite a bold instrument, though I am disappointed to see so-called 'digital' stops being used by a major reputable builder. The incorruptable are becoming fewer and fewer.


    Looks like a pretty impressive instrument. There are things to consider besides purity of design. For example, I have a 32' resultant based on a 16' subbass - it is a pipe rank. There is no place to put a genuine 32' stop unless we move the choir. Not going there. Some of those 32' pipe ranks can cost $400,000. That can be more than a congregation has to spend on an entire instrument. I can see digital for those large stops.

    Guidelines: The rules for the EF certainly don't apply to the OF. It has its own regulations - see GIRM. Rome has spoken, for the benefit of the ultramontanies among us. There is to be no mixing of the rites.
  • CatherineS
    Posts: 36
    AHA! Chapter 4 appears to be what I was looking for, in fact. Thank you!
  • CatherineS
    Posts: 36
    The GIRM is a bit like the 10 Commandments: a list of all the things most of us are not doing very well every day. God is very patient with us. My thanks to those of you making a better effort to bring dignity and beauty to our worship. I pray those of us who are not doing a good job of helping may improve.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,087
    I don't know where you are located, but we follow GIRM in letter and spirit. In fact, we follow our regulations better and more faithfully than the TLM folks. They often make excuses and exceptions when they want to do something else. I suppose that when you consider yourself anointed you can do that.
  • hilluminar
    Posts: 89
    CharlesW, the EF and the OF are both forms of the same rite. Therefore, I think it is probably ok to mix elements of both forms. Besides, if it were really true that there is to be no mixing of the different rites, the Gloria would have to be removed from the Roman rite, (it is definitely Eastern in origin), as well as the Te Deum, the Te Decet Laus, and Phos Hilarion (to name some things which have come to the West from the East). And, Lent (the 40 days) is a concept that originated in the West, and has spread to the East. So, does that mean that the East should no longer recognize the Season of Lent? What about Corpus Christi? Again, another concept currently spreading from West to East. Should the East not embrace this Feast? In short, there is, and will always be, a certain mixing of rites. It is inevitable. We are human, and have this fault of embracing the Good, the True, and the Beautiful.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,087
    Therefore, I think it is probably ok to mix elements of both form


    Not according to Pope Benedict. He stated that there is to be no mixing of the EF and OF.

    The east has no connection to the Latin Rite of the west. It doesn't want any, either.
  • The east has no connection to the Latin Rite of the west. It doesn't want any, either.


    Reminds me of a joke:

    "Don't be all British and Superior, Old Boy."
    "Don't be redundant, sir"

    Thanked by 2CharlesW CHGiffen
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,087
    I find it amusing, if not hypocritical, that some in the TLM feel they can do as they please, but accuse the NO crowd of doing exactly the same. Double standard here, or just sheer arrogance?
  • Incardination
    Posts: 351
    Perhaps it might be useful to recognize that it happens in both circles, and that it is just as wrong regardless of where it happens. Might even be more useful than being sarcastic or insulting - in either direction. :)
    Thanked by 3CharlesW Carol CHGiffen
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,087
    No one is being insulting. Just stating facts. And yes, it happens (mixing of rites) but shouldn't. All I can do is see it doesn't happen in my area of responsibility. I have had to verbally smack down some who wanted to get creative with the liturgy - old hippies you know who you are.
    Thanked by 1Carol
  • To get back to the original question, Musicam Sacram addresses degree of solemnity on weekdays versus feasts and Sundays, specifically as regards music. Check it out.

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_instr_19670305_musicam-sacram_en.html
    Thanked by 1WGS

  • "27. For the celebration of the Eucharist with the people, especially on Sundays and feast days, a form of sung Mass (Missa in cantu) is to be preferred as much as possible, even several times on the same day."

    "Preferred." What a curious word.

    "While I am not personally opposed to a form of sung Mass—in fact I very much prefer it as much as possible…"
  • stulte
    Posts: 188
    I find it amusing, if not hypocritical, that some in the TLM feel they can do as they please, but accuse the NO crowd of doing exactly the same. Double standard here, or just sheer arrogance?


    What, specifically, are you referring to?
    Thanked by 1Settefrati93
  • CatherineS
    Posts: 36
    Trenton, I was remembering this bit from previous reading, but had forgotten where I saw it:

    "7. Between the solemn, fuller form of liturgical celebration, in which everything that demands singing is in fact sung, and the simplest form, in which singing is not used, there can be various degrees according to the greater or lesser place allotted to singing. However, in selecting the parts which are to be sung, one should start with those that are by their nature of greater importance, and especially those which are to be sung by the priest or by the ministers, with the people replying, or those which are to be sung by the priest and people together. The other parts may be gradually added according as they are proper to the people alone or to the choir alone.

    8. Whenever, for a liturgical service which is to be celebrated in sung form, one can make a choice between various people, it is desirable that those who are known to be more proficient in singing be given preference; this is especially the case in more solemn liturgical celebrations and in those which either require more difficult singing, or are transmitted by radio or television.[6]

    If, however, a choice of this kind cannot be made, and the priest or minister does not possess a voice suitable for the proper execution of the singing, he can render without singing one or more of the more difficult parts which concern him, reciting them in a loud and distinct voice. However, this must not be done merely for the convenience of the priest or minister."

    Thanks for the reminder!
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,517
    The Peragallo organ at the Cathedral of SS Simon and Jude, referenced above by Matthew, is featured in the current issue of 'The American Organist'. It is quite a bold instrument, though I am disappointed to see so-called 'digital' stops being used by a major reputable builder. The incorruptable are becoming fewer and fewer.


    With 51 ranks of pipes, one can easily play a recital or Mass without ever touching the digital stops.

    Matthew, that's lovely.

    To add: were you involved in setting up that structure?


    I tweaked the previous structure a bit.

  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,087

    What, specifically, are you referring to?


    Applies strictly to my local people. Do I think they are radically different from many others? Probably not.

    My own take on it is that some (more than some) have never liked the NO, so they work like little beavers to make it as much like the EF as possible. If they don't like the NO, LEAVE. Go to an EF. They are available in most dioceses. Not to mention the fact that the rest of us would not have to put up with them any longer.
    Thanked by 1Settefrati93
  • fcbfcb
    Posts: 244
    I'm not entirely sure how everything said in the OP wouldn't also apply in the EF. What is a Missa Cantata but Low Mass with some music added? It is certainly not a different liturgy. And even Solemn Mass is just regular Mass with a few added ministers.

    OK, I know that Low Mass is actually Solemn Mass with the ministers and music removed, but my point is that there is no prescribed special liturgy in the EF for solemn occasions. An EF parish could just as readily celebrate a Low Mass on a patronal feast day as it could celebrate a solemn Mass. So I'm just not getting what problem is peculiar to the OF.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,087
    With 51 ranks of pipes, one can easily play a recital or Mass without ever touching the digital stops


    Some of us at a great distance would enjoy hearing this instrument. I hope some YouTube recordings may be in the works.
  • CatherineS
    Posts: 36
    So Musicam Sacram sets up some complexities. For instance:

    16 c) Some of the people's song, however, especially if the faithful have not yet been sufficiently instructed, or if musical settings for several voices are used, can be handed over to the choir alone, provided that the people are not excluded from those parts that concern them. But the usage of entrusting to the choir alone the entire singing of the whole Proper and of the whole Ordinary, to the complete exclusion of the people's participation in the singing, is to be deprecated. "

    and

    34. The songs which are called the "Ordinary of the Mass," if they are sung by musical settings written for several voices may be performed by the choir according to the customary norms, either a capella, or with instrumental accompaniment, as long as the people are not completely excluded from taking part in the singing."

    So my takeaway here is:
    The ordinary must be sung by the congregation (at least responsorially).
    The choir exists to lead the congregation in singing.
    The choir shall not sing anything the congregation cannot sing along (except the propers).

    How do you (personally, in your parishes) apply this?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,087
    The Ordinary is sung by all.
    The choir leads the congregation.
    The choir sings anthems and motets the congregation can not sing.

    Musicam Sacrum was published in 1967 and is a superseded document with no applicability, I believe, to the NO of Paul VI which was promulgated in the 1970 missal, as best I remember. Others may disagree, especially those who like what was in MS. I have no personal objection to anything in it, I just don't think it is legally binding any more.
    Thanked by 1CatherineS
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,517
    Some of us at a great distance would enjoy hearing this instrument. I hope some YouTube recordings may be in the works.


    A little tonal tour can be heard here:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jeFxzQbeAYo

  • stulte
    Posts: 188
    My own take on it is that some (more than some) have never liked the NO, so they work like little beavers to make it as much like the EF as possible. If they don't like the NO, LEAVE. Go to an EF.


    Hahaha! Understood. Yes, I agree and took such advice years ago.
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,485
    Musicam Sacrum was published in 1967 and is a superseded document with no applicability, I believe, to the NO of Paul VI which was promulgated in the 1970 missal

    How does that work?

    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html

    Musicam Sacram is cited eleven times
    Thanked by 1CatherineS
  • Settefrati93
    Posts: 147
    Charles, I agree. The double standard is not helping.

    You cannot do whatever you want in the name of being "modern" and "hip" and whatever. In the same regard, you cannot do whatever you want in the name of "Tradition".

    There are rubrics in both forms of the Mass and they ought to be followed. As we say in Italian "punto e basta!"
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,087
    It works because the Vatican later gave the authority for liturgy and music over to the conferences of bishops. I didn't say I think it was a great idea, but in practice it is what it is.
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,485
    gave the authority for liturgy and music over to the conferences of bishops

    No, some authority to the Bishop, and then to bodies of bishops.

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html

    22. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

    2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.

    3. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.


    And remember this ..

    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

    [28.] All liturgical norms that a Conference of Bishops will have established for its territory in accordance with the law are to be submitted to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments for the recognitio, without which they lack any binding force.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,435
    @Incardination....

    When MJO used the term "normative" he was using it in the technical sense. In fact, the Solemn Mass IS "normative" in the EF, with 'lesser degrees' (cantata and low) being 'detractions from' and with "pontifical" and up being 'additions to.'

    Today's meaning of the term 'normative' is the one you're working with but it does not apply here.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,087

    And remember this ..


    True on paper, but the conference usually gets that recognitio. You are appealing to documents, I simply note what is actually happening.
  • True on paper, but the conference usually gets that recognitio. You are appealing to documents, I simply note what is actually happening.

    <font color="sort-of-purple">If it's only on paper, support burns easily.</font>
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,087
    The intriguing thing is that much is put on paper with never any intention to enforce it.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • hilluminar
    Posts: 89
    CharlesW, I am just curious, since I have never heard or run across this before, but where and when did Pope Benedict explicitly say that there is to be no mixing of the 2 forms of the Roman rite? I am not trying to challenge your facts, but to change my outlook if indeed this is true. Is there anything in particular that Pope Benedict was referring to when he said this?

    Also, you said that: "The east has no connection to the Latin Rite of the west. It doesn't want any either." That may be true in many of the Eastern rites, but in the Maronite rite, it is not true. The Maronites are becoming so Roman, it is making me ill. After redesigning most of the Anaphoras in the new Missal so that any mention of the angels has been removed (think of the Liturgy of St. James and the 6 winged seraphim; how could they do this?), they proceed to have the "presentation of the gifts" by laity now, "prayers of the faithful" in more of a Roman style (more of the prayers made up rather than using just a fixed formula), and Readings and Intercessions read by women (at least the Intercessions should be read by a deacon), and less chanting and more talking through the prayers. (!!! Why are they doing this? !!!) What is to be gained by becoming the Roman rite of the East?
    Thanked by 2eft94530 CharlesW
  • Incardination
    Posts: 351
    From the original "indult", Quattuor Abhinc Annos:
    3.The celebration is to follow the Roman Missal of 1962 and must be in Latin.

    4.In the celebration there is to be no intermingling of the rites or texts of the two missals.


    From the Vatican Instruction Universae Ecclesiae on Summorum Pontificum:
    24. The liturgical books of the forma extraordinaria are to be used as they are. All those who wish to celebrate according to the forma extraordinaria of the Roman Rite must know the pertinent rubrics and are obliged to follow them correctly.
    ...
    28. Furthermore, by virtue of its character of special law, within its own area, the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum derogates from those provisions of law, connected with the sacred Rites, promulgated from 1962 onwards and incompatible with the rubrics of the liturgical books in effect in 1962.
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 5,880
    ...work like little heavers to make it as much like the EF as possible.
    That the OF is inherently bad and derives, yea, must derive healthful radiance from the EF is an untenable and false dichotomy. I (and I'm sure that I'm not alone) have witnessed and participated in beautiful, inspiring OF masses since before the restoration of the EF was even thought or dreamed of. Whatever one's experience of a given mass and its rite, blame the people involved for its beauty or lack thereof, not the rite itself. There are those who are tacky in everything they do (often willfully so), and there are those whose every act is pure poetry.

    If the OF had never happened, the zeitgeist of the late XXth century would have given us pop-styled propers (in Latin), Marty Haugen ordinaries (all in Latin), and the abuses heaped upon the OF would have been heaped upon the EF. People will push their envelopes as far as they can, and in the late XXth century they pushed them pretty far in the face of a toothless Vatican.

    And further, there are aspects of normative EF celebrations which one would not want to copy.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • Here, yet again, we have the tiresome insinuation that the OF is inherently, naturally, by intention, etc., trashy, ugly, absent of any gravitas, and so on, and that the EF is inherently beautiful, more worshipful, etc. And here, yet again, is the assertion (probably tiresome to some) that it's nothing of the sort, that this is a perniciously false dichotomy with no logically tenable fundament. The NO, when it is done beautifully, is not aping the EF, it is being its best self. The EF is not an example for the OF to copy. Indeed, there are representations of the EF that no one should wish to copy. Both EF and OF have their share of abuses, abuses which are of different sorts, but which are abuses just the same.


    I rarely take issue so strongly with anything you have written. Cardinal Ranjith noted some years ago (and I've made reference to this before) that the Missal of Paul VI can be celebrated reverently. The implication of his statement is that it isn't usually celebrated reverently, nor is it natural to the form to be celebrated with solemnity or reverence, nor is it consistent with anthropocentric "liturgy" to be such. In its nature, not in it's modi celebrandi, it's an inferior piece of work. Cardinal Ratzinger admitted as much when he described it (not its corruptions) as a "banal, on the spot" product.

    Since I want to end by agreeing with you, given that I respect your opinion on so many matters,

    there are representations of the EF that no one should wish to copy. Both EF and OF have their share of abuses, abuses which are of different sorts, but which are abuses just the same.



    This is manifestly and, I think, unarguably true.
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 5,880
    Chris -

    Thank you for disagreeing with me in so gracious a tone. I know what you mean, but cannot agree that the OF takes some special genie or talent to 'make' it beautiful. I long ago noted that the OF in the hands of an Anglican would 'normally' be quite different from what it 'comes out as' when celebrated by perfectly ordinary Catholic priests. Forgive me, but the Catholic world does have a unique talent for producing priests who have no aesthetic sensibilities, no sense of poetry, and not a clue as to ritual decorum and culture. This variety of cultural crassnes seems universally true of Catholic liturgics, and is as applicable to EF as to OF priests. Relatively and delightfully atypical are those Catholic priests who are exceptions to this descriptive observation. They are, every one of them, a gift from God. Again and again will I assert that it is specific people (in and out of holy orders) who make the given celebrations of a rite heavenly or banal and earthbound.

    Our priests at Walsingham tell us repeatedly that when they go out (as they do often) to celebrate OF mass in Roman rite places, they are inundated by people who come up to them and say things like 'what is it that you do!? the mass seems so holy when you celebrate it!' I think that any rite and any use is always at the mercy of the ministers and people who celebrate according to it. Let me say it again - the problem is people, the people in the pews with their attitudes, and the people at the altar who are products of poor, astonishingly poor seminary formation. Whether the mass is beautiful or shabby is determined not by the rite but by people.
    Thanked by 2Carol CHGiffen
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,087
    Forgive me, but the Catholic world does have a unique talent for producing priests who have no aesthetic sensibilities, no sense of poetry, and not a clue as to ritual decorum and culture.


    It's called desperation. We ordain whatever can make it though the door, or so it seems.

    Hilluminar, Incardination answered the question on the mixing of the rites.

    Maronites: The Maronites have always been united with Rome and have never really been independent of it. I think some of their moves westward in terms of liturgy began around the times of the Crusaders - their vestments being an example. They were at odds with the other eastern churches after the schism (the great misunderstanding). Their westward drift has continued and has gotten worse. I know Lebanon stays in a state of turmoil, and I am sure that has some effect. But what they think they gain by being mini-Latins is beyond me.
    Thanked by 1hilluminar
  • Carol
    Posts: 229
    The reverence of the priest as celebrant of the Mass is most critical, as MJO states. OF Mass with same people in the pews, same church, same musicians, BUT different priest- different experience. It may be that in the OF, it is easier to perceive the depth of reverence of the celebrant. But we should never forget that in whatever form the Sacrifice of the Mass is still the Sacrifice of the Mass.
  • Jackson,

    Let me try to be more specific in my critique.

    1) The Latin of the OF is more theologically poor than the Latin of the EF.
    2) Those who designed and built the OF intended it to be anthropocentric which, since they succeeded, makes it by nature less suited to the worship of God.
    3) Accepting your idea that it's not trying to be the EF creates the necessity of accepting a hermeneutic of rupture, which HH Pope Benedict explicitly rejected.
    4) Independent of the suppression of the Leonine Prayers, the prayers at the foot of the altar, multiple invocations of the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Michael, the exchanging of one longer section of a psalm for a shorter section of a different psalm at the Lavabo -- thus changing the point of that prayer -- the insistence on the changeable, modern vernacular as part of the substance of the rite makes it more changeable, more modern *and thus less timeless* and therefore inferior.
    5) The eliminating of Corpus Domini Nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam is an incalculable loss.
  • Carol
    Posts: 229
    CGZ, I am interested in your comment about the change of the selection of the psalm at the Lavabo. Can you elaborate?
  • Carol,

    Certainly.

    The Ordo of Paul VI has this text for what used to be called the Lavabo:

    " Lava me, Domine, ab iniquitate mea, et a peccato meo munda me."

    while the Ordo of John XXIII has this:

    "Lavabo inter innocentes manus meas et circumdabo altare tuum, Domine. Ut audiam vocem laudis, et enarrem universa mirabilia tua.

    Domine, dilexi decorum domus tuae, et locum habitationis gloriae tua.

    Ne perdas cum impiis, Deus, animam meam, et cum viris sanguinum vitam meam.

    In quorum manibus iniquitates sunt: dextera eorum repleta est muneribus.

    Ego autem in innocentia mea ingressus sum. Redime me, et miserere mei.

    Pes meus stetit in directo: in ecclesiis benedicam te, Domine."


    The newer, shorter text is from Psalm 50.
    The older, longer text is from Psalm 25. (Both psalm numbers are in the older form. Your NAB number will differ slightly.)

    I'll limit myself to some very obvious differences.

    1) In the older form, the priest washes his hands and says "I will wash my hands among the innocent". In the newer form he says "Wash me, O Lord, from my sins".

    2) In the older form he says "O Lord, I love the beauty of your house", while in the newer form he says. ………[searching]

    3) In the older form he says "Do not lose, among the impious, O Lord, my soul, or my life among men of blood", while in the newer form he says …….[searching]

    4) In the older form he says "their hands [i.e., the hands of those who are impious, men of blood,] are full of gifts", while in the newer form, he says ……[searching]

    And lastly,
    5) In the older form he says "I have walked in my innocence; redeem me and have mercy on me" and the newer form he says "and of my sins wash me"

    Hope that's helpful.
    Thanked by 2Carol eft94530