Reform of the Reform (Propers, Chant, etc.)
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,463
    I am wondering how many people here have actually implemented ex nihilo (as opposed to those places that simply maintained when the 1970 Missale Romanum was introduced) a Reform of the Reform music/liturgy program in their parish. Was it greeted with enthusiasm? Has it continued? Did it simply peter out? Has there been a, erm, "Francis Effect"? Has it improved your/your parish's spirituality? Or has it simply highlighted issues with the 1970 Missale Romanum, and turned you more towards the TLM?

    Inquiring minds (Ok, mainly just myself) want to know!!!
    Thanked by 1Schönbergian
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,575
    I was successful in taking a parish from G&P with a broken piano to an all-propers-included (vernacular) and hymnody program with a temporary digital organ within less than a year. We maintained that for another year until my successor (who later joined SSPX) built upon that with a heavy preference for Latin. They’re staying strong now 4 years later, and considering purchasing a real organ.

    There were only a few concessions made, including a metrical Gloria that the congregation revolts against changing, and backpedaling the Sunday evening Mass to the G&P style, with a contracted musician who leads that group and operating outside of the DM’s role (and schedule). The vigil and morning Masses still sing propers and hymns with organ.

    For your questions:
    There was some enthusiasm, some misgiving. Most people seemed to appreciate it over time and I had a few “converts” just from discussions in the parish office who happily recognized the difference between “sacred music” and “religious music” and the proper use of both. We did a video series and published articles from our bishop on sacred music in the bulletin, and that was all well received. We did have some very vocal critics, and the Sunday evening concession was an olive branch towards that, but there wasn’t any notable change in attendance as a result (like everyone suddenly going to that Mass because they missed the G&P style).

    I don’t know of the spiritual effect on anyone beyond the choir loft, but they (choir) all embraced it heartily and were edified in discovering treasures of the Mass that they had been missing for decades.

    No Francis effect to my knowing, other than the use of Latin has all but disappeared, which I think is just a matter of preference with the current pastor and DM.

    The only issue with the Missal was when a deacon once tried to convince me that we should SPEAK the Gloria on Easter Sunday...
    Thanked by 1PaxMelodious
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,079
    We have a Latin mass every Sunday, so those interested in Latin go to it. We use some Latin "anthems" and such and a Latin Ordinary during Lent for our Sunday morning English masses. That's about all the Latin anyone wants. Our hymns are mostly Anglican in origin and we have used the ICEL Chant Mass since 2011.

    Nobody cares about Francis.

    When I took the job in 2001, there were the usual Mass of Creation and tacky 70's hymns. They are all gone and I threw them out as soon as possible. I had the mighty Schantz restored and re-voiced as money permitted and the piano was silenced except for weddings.

    We are either your cup of tea, or not. If not, we encourage you to go elsewhere.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,053
    I implemented rotr under one pastor, kept it going with another who was less like-minded, but it collapsed under the next pastor after I left.

    It really takes a pastor and DM who agree on essentials, and a chancery that will not panic with the first letter or phone call.

    It helps enormously if the pastor and DM think through how to do things with the least resistance/ the greatest engagement.
  • I worked with my current pastor at our tiny parish to take us from a no-music-on-sundays-or-maybe-a-pianist-or-guitar to an organ (albeit a toaster), hymns, propers, chanted ordinary and creed, sung Mass every Sunday parish in a matter of a few years. The whole process has been gradual. Most people are passively accepting, a few are gung-ho supporters, and a few families/individuals have left over the years. This is normative, I believe.

    While we're going pretty strong now, I suspect the program would implode if I left. There are really no Catholic organists around here, nor are there many people with reasonable understanding of sacred music.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,458
    Every parish needs a fallback plan for musical emergencies, and it needs to be used sometimes so that everyone is aware of it. Otherwise what happens if the DM is involved in a traffic accident on the way to church?
    The only resources truly necessary for music at Mass are one confident cantor and the texts (in the pews if the PIPs are going to sing). Particularly in a small/tiny church that is sufficient for the Graduale Simplex, or By Flowing Waters, or other settings faithful to the tradition. If you do not have that in place then implosion is very likely, whatever the reason for your absence. If it is in place there will be at least some who know where to find relevant music, and how to deploy it. Whether that is then sufficient for the longer term depends on other factors, particularly the pastor.
  • The parish where I currently cantor began with SEP several years ago, and slowly introduced new elements over time. At present, propers are chanted (Gregorian for some cantors, SEP for others), and various other practices of the sort that I imagine you have in mind have been introduced, and have 'stuck'. There is sometimes resistance, but the only outright revolt occurred (twice, now) when a chanted, Latin, Gloria was introduced. The current DM still has the ambition of success on that front, though the path to success isn't clear.

    There is no way (that I can see) that the parish would switch to TLM. Current practices are very stable, and there is the possibility of introducing some further elements, but I can't see TLM in its future.

    I'm sure the elements of success are going to be different in different places. One that is absolutely crucial, I'd venture, is that the music must be sung (and played) well. I've visited parishes whose traditionalist musical ambitions outstripped the ability of the musicians; rather than using more accessible settings (simplex, SEP, or the like) they insist on 'the real thing' (as if the others aren't 'real'?), and people revolt because bad singing is not disguised by good intentions.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,458
    bad singing is not disguised by good intentions
    Absolutely, there was a lot of that in the 1950s, we generally avoided sung Masses. But there is even more of it from the guitar and drumkit brigades.
    Thanked by 1MichaelDickson
  • Depends what you mean. I tend to have a different philosophy to many on this:

    One approach could be called "Cleansing the Temple". That's not my way of doing things.

    My goal instead is to create a space in which the following is true: Most of the worthy offerings of the Church's heritage can be sung within the context of the parish liturgy without seeming out of place.

    Sometimes, this goal involves removal of repertoire. More often, it involves the smart and thoughtful use of existing repertoire, as well as thoughtfulness about its interpretation, and the smart introduction of traditional repertoire, and its use in ways that brings out its best.
  • including a metrical Gloria that the congregation revolts against changing,


    Can I be curious and ask what Gloria that is?
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,575
    Mass of Renewal
  • toddevoss
    Posts: 96
    .
    but the only outright revolt occurred (twice, now) when a chanted, Latin, Gloria was introduced
    . Interesting because my introduction to Chant was when Our Lady of Good Counsel introduced the Jubilate Deo ordinaries which included the VIII Gloria. It was done in fall of 2011 I think because they wanted to use the Worship hymnal we had and it had the Latin chant mass which of course didn't change with MR3. Also our priest had ROTR leanings. I initially revolted only on the Gloria because it was so long and I thought it was obnoxious for him to think we could learn it. But I did over several months of weekly mass and started to notice I enjoyed it after about 8 months or so. By month 12 I loved it and occasionally would find myself whistling phrases of it.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen tomjaw
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,283
    There is no way (that I can see) that the parish would switch to TLM. Current practices are very stable, and there is the possibility of introducing some further elements, but I can't see TLM in its future.
    and that is the insidious error of the ROTR
  • I'm not sure what you mean by 'insidious error'. (I am sufficiently unfamiliar with the 'intentions' of the ROTR -- if indeed there is a univocal intention -- to know what would count as an error.) There is great value in the TLM, but I do not feel compelled (indeed, even inclined) to label hard-fought and hard-won improvements in liturgical and musical practice the result of some sort of 'error'.

    The introduction of TLM is a wonderful when it happens for the right reasons, and I would support it locally if it were to happen for those reasons. I do not believe that excellent liturgical practice must have as its end (in the sense of telos) the introduction of the TLM.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,079
    It wasn't an error to reform the liturgy. It needed it and changes made to its liturgy were made by the Church. The Church rightly desired to reform that liturgy. Unfortunately, the reforms were poorly managed and went off the rails in too many places.

    I am not aware of any official Church policies or dogmas mandating any "reform of the reform." While some reforms may be needed, the whole ROTR thing is just something someone made up.
    Thanked by 3tomjaw PaxMelodious fcb
  • CatherineS
    Posts: 225
    I'm a little unclear on whether the desire to reform the liturgy had anything to do something being wrong with the liturgy in and of itself, or if it was mostly motivated by the perception that the *use* of the liturgy was generally of poor quality (the stereotype of the mumbling priest and inattentive uncomprehending congregation). The two problems are utterly unrelated - people will do anything poorly. Giving them a new thing to do doesn't fix sin, it just applies the same faults to a new activity.
  • It wasn't an error to reform the liturgy. It needed it and changes made to its liturgy were made by the Church. The Church rightly desired to reform that liturgy. Unfortunately, the reforms were poorly managed and went off the rails in too many places.


    My fellow curmudgeon approves of something his Roman relatives intended! Surely this is a news item in itself.

    Can you help me understand something? [serious inquiry warning]

    When I attend Mass in the Extraordinary form, I find it normal, and have repeatedly been tormented by the question, "What was so urgently in need of reform?" in terms of the rite itself. (Badly executed science doesn't argue for an overhaul of everything in science, and surely Catherine is right that people will simply move their faults to the new endeavor.)

  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,523
    @Chris Garton-Zavesky
    When I attend Mass in the Extraordinary form, I find it normal, and have repeatedly been tormented by the question, "What was so urgently in need of reform?"


    It depends on who is looking...
    If you are looking out at the congregation in Italy c. 1950, because the M.C. has confiscated your Breviary you may be a little disappointed.
    If you look out at the Congregation in an English Cathedral, and many parish churches c. 1950, you will be happy.
    If you are a German c.1950 you may be unhappy you are not like the Protestants down the road, and you too would like to make things up as you go along.

    The Rite of the Canons of Roman, later codified at the Missal of the Council of Trent, was a good compromise, and had served the Church well. I would much prefer the Sarum with all the extra Sequences and ceremony, but I am Anglo Saxon, and that seems to have always appealed to us.

    The main problem with the reformed Rite is it seems to have been designed to facilitate the Mass 'le mess' with giant puppet clowns, or a celebration designed by Susan with her ranks of old women, dancing to bad 1960's folk musak. But also the Mass as celebrated in the London Oratory... The problem with the ROTR, is that as long as the priest is onside you can have your chant and latin, but as soon as Canon ipsidipsy visit you will have the giant clown mass all using the same books.

    I am grateful for the ROTR, it has provided us with many Priests, servers, singers and people that have entered through the gateway of the ROTR to the Extraordinary form.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,458
    The Council of Trent called for reform of the liturgy, emphasising: restoration, instruction/engagement/comprehension, and participation in communion. Trent XXII; ch vi, ch viii There was some restoration, but by 1900 there was little or no engagement by the congregation with the liturgy, it was 'just' an opportunity for private devotion. 60 years of papal exhortation had led to some improvement, but it was still short of Trent's vision. VII therefor repeated the call in Sacrosanctum Concilium :-
    48. The Church, therefore, earnestly desires that Christ's faithful, when present at this mystery of faith, should not be there as strangers or silent spectators; ...
    50. The rite of the Mass is to be revised in such a way that the intrinsic nature and purpose of its several parts, as also the connection between them, may be more clearly manifested, and that devout and active participation by the faithful may be more easily achieved.
    For this purpose the rites are to be simplified, due care being taken to preserve their substance; elements which, with the passage of time, came to be duplicated, or were added with but little advantage, are now to be discarded; other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers, as may seem useful or necessary.
    51. The treasures of the bible are to be opened up more lavishly, so that richer fare may be provided for the faithful at the table of God's word. In this way a more representative portion of the holy scriptures will be read to the people in the course of a prescribed number of years.
    52. By means of the homily the mysteries of the faith and the guiding principles of the Christian life are expounded from the sacred text, during the course of the liturgical year; the homily, therefore, is to be highly esteemed as part of the liturgy itself; ...
    54. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. ...
    55. That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest's communion, receive the Lord's body from the same sacrifice, is strongly commended.
    Thanked by 1hilluminar
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,079

    When I attend Mass in the Extraordinary form, I find it normal, and have repeatedly been tormented by the question, "What was so urgently in need of reform?"


    It had become an exercise in clericalism. It was theater with onlookers, not participants. It has always amazed me that TLM devotees totally ignore those calls by popes and councils for reforms.

    "Normal" is a perception based on where one is currently positioned. It is relative not an absolute.

    Thanked by 1PaxMelodious
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,458
    What made it urgent was that the Sacred Congregation of Rites (of whom Fortescue was so contemptuous) had been resisting any reform whatsoever. As usual, if government refuse neccessary moderate reforms, revolution eventually follows.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW Liam
  • davido
    Posts: 182
    CharlesW and those content with their local version of the New Mass:
    does it bother you at all that the character of the mass was changed? The completely new emphasis (some would argue Protestantization) of the lectionary and presidential orations leads in the direction of a different religion. All of this has been thoroughly documented at NLM, Fr Z, etc.
    Assuming vernacular and congregational participation was the primary need for liturgical change, why were we given a whole new mass, rather than just a vernacular version of the traditional liturgy?

    I just watched a US Marine Corps birthday video that said “everything we do is governed by our traditions.” It’s impossible to escape the fact that Catholic tradition was chucked in favor of something different and new.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw irishtenor
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,079
    I don't see all those supposed differences. Yes, the priest faces a different direction. Hardly earth shattering since TLM priests often face west rather than east as tradition actually calls for. Facing the tabernacle. Putting tabernacles on the altar is a post-Trent innovation that even the Vatican opposed for some time after the council ended. I still hear the Roman Canon every Sunday in English. Language is not a hill to die on and it is the same in any language, properly translated. I use chant every Sunday - sometimes Latin, mostly English. Propers are still there although we don't always do all of them but there is at least one of them in every mass. The readings have been expanded to expose the people to more scripture. That's a good thing. My choir still sings some of the same music heard years ago before there ever was a NO. Where is that great loss of tradition?
    Thanked by 2a_f_hawkins Liam
  • stulte
    Posts: 249
    I'm prepping music for an upcoming OF wedding Mass which will include the chant Propers (in Latin), polyphony for the Ordinary, and will be said ad orientem from the Offertory onwards. I'm glad to do my best to ensure that what is given to God is the very finest of what we can offer Him. However, I NEVER want to handle the music for another OF Mass EVER again so long as I live! It seems that ROTR would be better termed ROTD; I.e. Reform of the Deform. The text of the new Missal in no way that I can discern compares favorably with the TLM. The lectionary is a choose-your-own-adventure novel, and the structure allows for the opinions of a few to force a place for untraditional practices. As challenging as dealing with personalities can be at a TLM wedding, the Mass itself is very straightforward. I don't blame people at all for trying to do the best they can with the OF Mass, but ultimately stability will only be found in embracing the traditional Rite.

    Language is not a hill to die on and it is the same in any language, properly translated.
    That's a far bolder statement than anything I wrote above. Something is ALWAYS lost during translating.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw irishtenor
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,458
    davido - nearly all the orations can be traced back to the ancient Sacramentaries (Leonine, Gelasian, etc.), and there are erudite tomes laying that out. The first round of ICEL "translations" is another matter, and of course they were only intended as a stopgap. Unfortunately the Bishops' Conferences were reluctant to allow further change, and when ICEL was allowed another bite of the cherry, Rome only sent some rude comments about other aspects of their work.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,079
    My point is that much of what gets called tradition really isn't. We have what we grew up with and accept it as the way things have always been. Every age, unfortunately, has seen additions, deletions, and re-interpretations of the Roman Rite mass. It was never as constant and unchanging as some would have us believe. I don't know who you work for, Stulte. My pastor would never allow some of the things you mentioned.

    Something is ALWAYS lost during translating.


    Then you better go back to the authentic Greek.
  • TCJ
    Posts: 638
    It had become an exercise in clericalism. It was theater with onlookers, not participants. It has always amazed me that TLM devotees totally ignore those calls by popes and councils for reforms.


    And now we have theatrical comedy with a few self-important women in capris playing priest in the sanctuary, while the congregation "participates" by mindlessly parroting responses which actually mean nothing to them. When a person who has been attending Mass in English for 50 years approaches and says "I don't understand when you sang the Gloria in Latin", it hits me that the person doesn't understand it when it's in English either.

    I'll take "clericalism" and people actually attending Mass and living Christian lives over "participation" and the mess we're in now.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,458
    Davido - I am not one of those content with any current version of the OF. I find the opening 'Penitential Rite' perfunctory, and the Communion and closing worse. They are no better in the EF. And the choice at the "Eucharistic Acclamation" I think absurd. The Ordinariate version of Mass in Divine Worship: the Missal is better.
    As to performance, I have not experienced a 'perfect' Mass a dozen times in my life (81 years), that would be around ten thousand Masses. But then I have eaten far more hot neals, with no better perfection rating, adequacy is usual with both, execrable is equally rare. I therefor focus on my need for nourishment, whether physical or spiritual, and try to choose the best available.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,079
    I therefor focus on my need for nourishment, whether physical or spiritual, and try to choose the best available.


    I think that is what we all do.

    I'll take "clericalism" and people actually attending Mass and living Christian lives over "participation" and the mess we're in now.


    Again, I don't know where some of you go to church. The things you object to wouldn't fly for 30 seconds in my place.

  • CatherineS
    Posts: 225
    I think one of the things that most struck me was when I spent time in some rural Brazilian communities that have never stopped celebrating the old rite: No one is sitting there like pumpkins watching a performance! There's a deep, active, and enthusiastic participation, both in the responses, communal prayers, hymn singing, and so on. In the Anglo-Saxon world I've only been to EF Masses in big cities, and in communities where it has been 'restored': I remember going to a church in London shortly after I converted and marveling at the utter silence. Great if you love silent prayer! Really weird if you aren't used to it!! But that's not 'normal' or universal by any means, it seems to me more a result of regional culture.

    The 'clericalism' thing is mystifying to me, too. It means snooty priests who think they are superior to dumb ole lay-people, right? Or it means priests who are cold and distant and don't like to socialize informally? That's my best guess.

    In any case, huggy, friendly, jolly clergy seem to be a thing dependent on regional culture and individual personality, too. I know outgoing and introverted priests in both rites. I know priests who hug (a normal greeting in much of Brazil), and priests who don't, in both rites. I know priests who are so easy to talk to and others who don't like being over-familiar, in both rites. I know priests who are a bit arrogant and others who are profoundly humble...in both rites. Most of them I know could use more sleep!

    I'm pretty sure that most of our broad ideas about how 'those people' are can be overcome by actually hanging out in person and having lunch together.

    Just some thoughts...
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,846
    As one cardinal recently noted, clericalism doesn't consist of having an interest in the liturgy, or in liking birettas.

    I'll add: clericalism is not what happens when the priest wears heavy vestments, or when the choir sings "Ecce sacerdos magnus" or "Ton dhespotin" for the entrance of a bishop.

    Clericalism is what happens when clerics abuse the power of the clergy for sinful purposes.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,079
    Clericalism can involve huge egos, too.
    There is also a mindset that develops of letting father do everything and we just watch. Not good, since we all have a part to play. The mass is not all about father, although some priests seem to think it is.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,283
    does it bother you at all that the character of the mass was changed? The completely new emphasis (some would argue Protestantization) of the lectionary and presidential orations leads in the direction of a different religion. All of this has been thoroughly documented at NLM, Fr Z, etc.
    Assuming vernacular and congregational participation was the primary need for liturgical change, why were we given a whole new mass, rather than just a vernacular version of the traditional liturgy?

    I will echo the same thought... The NO parrots a new religion... THAT is the significant 'off the tracks' few people understand or are willing to admit.

    Remember this?

    https://sspx.org/en/ottaviani-intervention

    ...and when I speak of 'error', I only echo the words of Ottaviani himself in the last paragraph of his study...

    And all this at one of the most critical moments—if not the most critical moment—of the Church’s history! Today, division and schism are officially acknowledged to exist not only outside of but within the Church.[33] Her unity is not only threatened but already tragically compromised.[34] Errors against the Faith are not merely insinuated but positively imposed by means of liturgical abuses and aberrations which have been equally acknowledged.[35] To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries was both the sign and the pledge of unity of worship[36] (and to replace it with another which cannot but be a sign of division by virtue of the countless liberties implicitly authorized, and which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic religion) is, we feel in conscience bound to proclaim, an incalculable error.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,079
    I think all that is a bit of an over-reaction, Francis. I am encouraged by the young priests I am meeting, fresh out of seminary, and doing their best to improve the liturgy. Things are looking better and up, although those inclined to negativity can always find something to object to. One good sign is the Roman Missal of 2010-2011 that did away with those abominable translations we were saddled with for years.

    Four centuries of liturgical tradition? Why that's hardly a drop in the bucket time-wise. When some of the eastern liturgies are more like 1500-1600 years old, four centuries is relatively new in comparison. I wonder if the Pius V missal upset the traditionalists of that day as much as the NO missal upsets them today?

    Anyway, I prefer the half-full glass to the half-empty one.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,846
    Note a historical detail, Francis: Cdl. Ottaviani didn't write the "intervention", though he did endorse it with a cover letter addressed to Pope Paul.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • Anyway, I prefer the half-full glass to the half-empty one.

    Surely, as a curmudgeon, you merely want it refilled?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,079
    Not a perfect world, not a perfect church, either - especially from an administrative standpoint. The famous phrase that also applies to church music, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Maybe the "perfect" is sometimes over-rated and not as perfect as you think.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,283
    Yes, that is right Chonak.


    Letter from Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci to His Holiness Pope Paul VI
    September 25th, 1969

    Most Holy Father, Having carefully examined, and presented for the scrutiny of others, the Novus Ordo Missae prepared by the experts of the Consilium ad exequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia, and after lengthy prayer and reflection, we feel it to be our bounden duty in the sight of God and towards Your Holiness, to put before you the following considerations:

    1. The accompanying critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae, the work of a group of theologians, liturgists and pastors of souls, shows quite clearly in spite of its brevity that if we consider the innovations implied or taken for granted which may of course be evaluated in different ways, the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent. The "canons" of the rite definitively fixed at that time provided an insurmountable barrier to any heresy directed against the integrity of the Mystery.

    2. The pastoral reasons adduced to support such a grave break with tradition, even if such reasons could be regarded as holding good in the face of doctrinal considerations, do not seem to us sufficient. The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicions already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever. Recent reforms have amply demonstrated that fresh changes in the liturgy could lead to nothing but complete bewilderment on the part of the faithful who are already showing signs of restiveness and of an indubitable lessening of faith.

    Amongst the best of the clergy the practical result is an agonising crisis of conscience of which innumerable instances come tour notice daily.

    3. We are certain that these considerations, which can only reach Your Holiness by the living voice of both shepherds and flock, cannot but find an echo in Your paternal heart, always so profoundly solicitous for the spiritual needs of the children of the Church. It has always been the case that when a law meant for the good of subjects proves to be on the contrary harmful, those subjects have the right, nay the duty of asking with filial trust for the abrogation of that law.

    Therefore we most earnestly beseech Your Holiness, at a time of such painful divisions and ever-increasing perils for the purity of the Faith and the unity of the church, lamented by You our common Father, not to deprive us of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to the fruitful integrity of that Missale Romanum of St. Pius V, so highly praised by Your Holiness and so deeply loved and venerated by the whole Catholic world.

    A. Card. Ottaviani
    A. Card. Bacci
    Thanked by 1petrus_simplex
  • Arthur Connick
    Posts: 436
    The rotr was originally about walking the novus ordo mass closer to the TLM. But now that priests can freely celebrate the TLM, what's the point of the rotr? Is there any spiritual or social benefit from propers vs. hymns?
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,079
    In a word, no, or at least not much more to one than the other.
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 365
    Depending on which Catholic you ask, you'll get the answer that either "Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion" or "Extraordinary Form" is most definitely normal practice, but the other is just short of heresy. I take the view that both of them are for extraordinary circumstances.

    ROTR is about restoring the NO to a place of actual dignity and reversing many of the unsanctioned changes made by clergy following Vatican II. In other words, making the OF and the EF just as dignified, proper, and rubrically/theologically sound - just with one being the typical form and one being for extraordinary use.
    Thanked by 1irishtenor
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,283
    ROTR is about restoring the NO to a place of actual dignity
    There was never a place of actual dignity in the NO. It was merely the replacement of the true form with a fabricated mess. And it seems you are all still avoiding the subject of the fact that the theological elements of the Mass were removed to create the NO so that protestants would be happy with the nuRite.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,458
    Is there any spiritual or social benefit from propers vs. hymns?
    I don't see any benefit from literally (clumsily) translated Latin prose over an equivalent metrical text. However the essential is that the text should not be heretical, or lead people to heresy, and that requires that the text of the hymns should be properly evaluated and formally approved
    ut legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi.
    , which is what GIRM requires (GIRM#48, etc.). So not reform of the reform, but the application of the reform.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,458
    francis - I understand that Cdl Ottaviani did not agree with you, he wrote on 17 February 1970
    I have rejoiced profoundly to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and especially the doctrinal precisions contained in his discourses at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26 1969 after which I believe, no one can any longer be genuinely scandalized. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing.
    Thanked by 1Liam