Latin Novus Ordo … thoughts?
  • Advocates of the NOM in Latin seem to be few and far between these days.

    Do folks here see merit in this form of celebration, distinct from a TLM? I’d be curious of folks’ thoughts.

    Thank you!
    Thanked by 1Gustavo Zayas
  • canadashcanadash
    Posts: 1,455
    Do you mean ALL of the prayers in Latin, or just the sung parts? We have the NO in English but the sung parts are in Latin.
    Thanked by 1toddevoss
  • Picky, picky. :-P

    I’m referring to anything that one might subjectively refer to as a “Latin Mass”. Whether that’s vernacular readings only, vernacular readings & collects, etc.

    Personally I wouldn’t consider a Mass where only the Ky/Gl/Cr/Sn/Bn/Ag are Latin to be a “Latin Mass”; I would also expect most/all of the Order of Mass to be in Latin.

    The question is vague, I guess, because so is the concept. But I’m genuinely curious of people’s thoughts about the point of using Latin in the NOM given that it seems (in my experience, anyway) much more “energy” goes into TLMs nowadays.

    Is there anyplace, anywhere, that actually does Latin readings at the NOM? (The Lectionarium has been out of print since the early 80s, I think …)
  • I have participated in numerous NO masses in Latin and found them highly satisfying. What I find highly dissatisfying is Latin this and English that. A Latin mass should be just that, a mass in its entirety in Latin, not a pastiche of languages - and, that includes the lectionary, which should be in the language that the mass is in!
    I feel the same about English masses, which can be just as beautiful as Latin ones. Choose one Language, be it Latin, English, or Urdu, and celebrate the entire mass in it, including the lectionary and prayers of the faithful. This seamless continuum is the most satisfying and beautiful.
  • The famous Church of St. Agnes in St. Paul, MN (home to the late Msgr. Richard Schuler) recently switched its principal EF Solemn Mass on Sunday mornings to an OF mass in Latin. I haven’t been there in ages but I haven’t yet heard any reports of the congression going into revolt over it. So some places do it.
  • St. John Cantius in Chicago does it every Sunday.
  • It would be just as gabby as the English NO, but with even less point. Plus the 3 year lectionary, messed up calendar, etc. If for some reason it's the best one can do, OK, but I don't really see why.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw rich_enough
  • A Latin mass should be just that, a mass in its entirety in Latin, not a pastiche of languages - and, that includes the lectionary, which should be in the language that the mass is in!
    I feel the same about English masses, which can be just as beautiful as Latin ones. Choose one Language, be it Latin, English, or Urdu, and celebrate the entire mass in it, including the lectionary and prayers of the faithful. This is the most satisfying and beautiful.
    Pastors of souls, having taken into consideration pastoral usefulness and the character of their own language, should see whether parts of the heritage of sacred music, written in previous centuries for Latin texts, could also be conveniently used, not only in liturgical celebrations in Latin but also in those performed in the vernacular. There is nothing to prevent different parts in one and the same celebration being sung in different languages. (Musicam sacram 51)
  • To Jackson and @madorganist’s points: it would be interesting to look at how Eastern Churches straddle the boundary between hieratic and vernacular languages. Coptic ritual, for example, seems to pass rather freely between Coptic and either English or Arabic—where I am, anyway.
    Thanked by 1JL
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,640
    I’ve only seen it happen once, at a Christmas Midnight Mass celebrated ad orientem. Gregorian propers and organ and incense.

    9/10*, would recommend.

    *if we didn’t lose things like prayers at the foot of the altar in the NO, this would be a 10.
    Thanked by 1Gustavo Zayas
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,025
    In London, Westminster Cathedral has a weekday 10:30 Mass in Latin. 45 years ago they had a Sunday Mass in Latin without choir or organ which I used to attend, but it died (from lack of popular support I think), the readings were always in English, the orations varied, some celebrants chanted them. The London Oratory has an EF low Mass every day, and an OF Latin Mass every day except Saturday.
  • doneill
    Posts: 191
    I think there is merit to it, especially in multilingual communities and urban areas with many international travelers. Just provide multilingual booklets like they do at St. Peter's Basilica.
  • I think all Diocesan Masses celebrated by the bishop should be in Latin. We live in a multicultural society where people of all different languages live. What better way to unite the Diocese than with the Church’s universal language?
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,640
    bUt VaTiCaN 2
    Thanked by 1francis
  • GerardH
    Posts: 159
    The place I've seen the Latin OF used most is around priests and houses of Opus Dei, either for private Masses or as the regular Mass on Saturdays. Readings were proclaimed in the vernacular.

    The other place I've seen it, and where it makes perfect sense, is at World Youth Day in Poland. When the Universal Church is gathered, of course the liturgy should be in the universal language. It was disappointing to see the liturgies celebrated in the vernacular at other World Youth Days I have attended.

    Fascinatingly, at the papal Mass in Poland, the gospel was proclaimed twice, once by a deacon of the Roman Rite, and once by a deacon of an Eastern Rite. If my memory serves, this comes from an old tradition of papal Masses in Rome having the gospel proclaimed in Latin and in Greek, to signify the two sides of the church.

    And I respectfully disagree with MJO about using only one language, for the above, and the aforementioned diversity of language found within single rites from the East. In the Maronite Rite, the consecration is prayed in Aramaic (I'm pretty sure), while the rest of the liturgy is in Arabic or other vernacular.
  • Choose one Language, be it Latin, English, or Urdu, and celebrate the entire mass in it, including the lectionary and prayers of the faithful.

    Away with the Kyrie! Away with the Alleluia! :)

    In Cincinnati, Old St. Mary's church (our sister parish), has had the Latin OF (all Sundays and most feasts) for at least 30-40 years... as well as the English OF (daily including Sunday) and German OF (Sundays). In 2008, the parish also started offering the EF, but only for certain feasts - which eventually transitioned to daily EF with Sung or Solemn EF Masses on all major feasts... while still keeping the other three Mass types.

    However, starting this past Advent I, the Latin OF was replaced by the EF, so now there is daily EF and OF (English), with a Low EF, Sung EF, German OF and English OF on Sundays.

    We've also seen a number of Latin OF at other parishes from time to time. Not frequent, but maybe about 1 every 2 years or so (on average).
    Thanked by 2Liam CHGiffen
  • GambaGamba
    Posts: 284
    In my current job, every Solemnity has a Mass with at least all sung components in Latin, and on some occasions, really depending on the [con]celebrants’ aptitude, also the Canon in Latin.

    Feel free to flay me, but NOM in Latin really is my favorite, for these reasons:

    -Anyone who wanders in from an NO background (that’s what, 99% of those not reared in the few SSPX/FSSP/ICKSP parishes?) knows what to do and when and recognizes what’s going on, in a way that they would not upon finding themselves at a TLM.
    -Speakers of all languages find themselves united (save for the homily) and on equal footing; no group is left out.
    -If you have a good celebrant who doesn’t improvise inanely (and that’s likely if you have one who cares to offer such a Mass), the rite itself is crystal-clear and admits few pious additions – unlike at an EF, you don’t have to sit there guessing just how much of the First Liturgical Movement Fr. Youngtrad accepts, whether you should speak up when it’s time for the Confiteor of the servers, etc. etc.
    -Certain ancient practices, which connect us to our distant forebears, have been restored, rightly or wrongly, wholly or partially: the singing of the Canon and concelebration come to mind first.
    -One does not get out of sync with the modern calendar, in the way that a multi-form parish has to celebrate Christ the King twice, bury the Alleluia twice, celebrate St. X’s day in winter but also in summer and so on.
    -One has more time to appreciate and meditate on the gradual and alleluia when they are separated, not strung together into one long chant.
    -The Gregorian repertory and Latin polyphony can be sung, but also supplemented ad lib. by things one can never perform in the EF, say Howells or Stanford in English, Bach and Rheinberger and Brahms in German, an extra hymn or two.
    -In conclusion – the Latin NOM has the elegant, elevated language and sacred music of the TLM, while the ritual remains recognizable and comprehensible to the uninitiated. Thus, the hopes of the council’s better liturgists are realized, and are saved from degenerating into banality by the unity of the liturgy when celebrated in Latin; any vernacular intrusion, offhand remark, or joke sticks out like a sore thumb in a way that it doesn’t when the celebrant is already effectively holding court in his mother tongue.

    (Of course, I do not deny the value of the things only the TLM includes. Please don’t actually flay me.)
  • The Gregorian repertory and Latin polyphony can be sung, but also supplemented ad lib. by things one can never perform in the EF, say Howells or Stanford in English, Bach and Rheinberger and Brahms in German, an extra hymn or two.
    It's pretty standard (and tolerated by legitimate authority) in German-speaking countries to include German hymns and motets at EF High Masses, even replacing parts of the Proper or Ordinary. In the Anglosphere, why would it be desirable to include pieces that are neither in the vernacular nor the liturgical language? It would seem to contradict another reason you stated above, i.e.:
    Speakers of all languages find themselves united (save for the homily) and on equal footing; no group is left out.
  • pretty standard (and tolerated by legitimate authority) in German-speaking countries


    It should be a separate post, perhaps, but what else might be described this way?
  • Yes.

    It is a prophetic witness: this is the extent of what is possible, that was not abolished by the liturgical reform. It dispels a lot of myths about "what Vatican II got rid of."

    Both for the trad, and the proponent of the reform it clarifies the terms of the debate.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,863
    The Latin Novus Ordo is a good compromise, but has two problems...

    1. Some 'bishops' (and other never do wells in clerical circles) have a pathological hatred of Tradition so Latin has to be banned.

    2. The more you study the Mass (Liturgy and Music) the more you will value Traditional Liturgy and Music, this in many cases becomes a pathway to the TLM.

    As we have seen if the Vatican as in Pope Benedict's time encourages such Liturgy it will thrive, but if the Vatican does not care as in the current regime, this halfway house will whither. It can be be difficult to keep your balance on a tightrope if the rope is constantly moving.

    As for German practices at the TLM, this is unfortunate, and will hopefully die out. N.B. Some places did have permission c. 1900's from the bishop to replace the Propers.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,518
    Gamba, I will stand with you. For myself, I have no attachment to Latin. God understands English quite well, Unfortunately, many of the people don't understand Latin. My eastern church used Old Church Slavonic until most all the immigrants died out then switched to English. With the EF crowd, none of them are native Latin speakers.

    What I think should have been done between EF and OF is adopt a uniform calendar. The lack of that causes more problems than language. I don't mean adopt the EF calendar since it contained events that are largely meaningless in today's time and culture. It needed revising. I think a good compromise could be developed between the two calendars. As it is, we deal with what are essentially old and new calendarists.

    I still don't understand why in the revisions, the very good work done by the Anglicans in both translations and music was not adopted and used in the OF. How did doing our own thing musically work out for us? Not so well, I think.
    Thanked by 2hilluminar toddevoss
  • Those who take "Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion" as something beyond the mainstream, only for certain circumstances, should also take "Extraordinary Form" in the same light.

    Latin NO isn't a "compromise" - if celebrated properly, there is very little that is directly theologically deficient when compared to the TLM. More importantly, it cements that a hard-line dichotomy between free-for-all NO and stuffy, legalistic TLM Masses does not actually exist.
  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,112
    I do a Latin Novus Ordo every Sunday and holyday. I adore it and it works for us.
    Thanked by 1hilluminar
  • JQ’s response is more or less the sense I get from a lot of folks.

    I personally appreciate the NOM/Latin’s accessibility for those unaccustomed to (or less-than-fully-enamored of) Latin ritual. Musically, the licitness of vernacular motets opens up the vast repertoire of German and English sacred music—much of it eminently consistent with the Roman polyphonic tradition.

    But, that’s certainly not a rejoinder to the more foundational arguments against, e.g., 3-year Lectionary, panoply of options, excision of the Offertory, prayers at the foot of the Altar, etc. And, of course, as lovely as Bairstow is, the NOM’s effective rubrical proscription of polyphonic Ordinaries is a heavy, heavy price to pay musically.
  • For those who follow both sides of the Novus Ordo versus Usus Antiquior argumentation, it is becoming clear that whatever hopes many of us have had for peaceful coexistence are fading. Most Novus Ordo advocates, whether using Latin or not, follow such influential leaders as Anthony Ruff in dismissing the old rite’s legitimacy, i.e. the Holy Spirit was at work during Vatican II, which we need to be reminded involved much more than liturgy, or the Holy Spirit was not. To them, the answer is clear.

    On the other side, reactionaries like Peter Kwasniewski see little fruit coming from the Reform of the Reform, a movement energized by Pope Benedict XVI’s book Spirit of the Liturgy that addressed failings of the new rite (read Kwasniewski’s December 9, 2019 posting at The New Liturgical Movement on the 50th anniversary of the Novus Ordo). To Kwasniewski and many others committed to the old rite, reform is wishful thinking. The post-Vatican II liturgical culture is too entrenched and there is little or no supporting evidence of essential change from human-centered to God-centered worship.

    Though struggling with this contention for some time, I have no answers. There are weaknesses to both arguments. Ruff’s refusal to take critical public stands against common liturgical music practices is puzzling; he’s too bright a guy to buy into “it’s just a matter of personal taste” or “it’s our culture” philosophical arguments. Kwasniewski, on the other hand, doesn’t offer realistic solutions on how old rite followers can make a clean break or how to assess the whole of Vatican II. Furthermore, the vast majority of Catholics don’t live near parishes offering a Usus Antiquior Mass, let alone one dedicated exclusively to it. Are we all to pick up and move to Wyoming?

    I can’t say this situation is unprecedented. Among the happiest years of my life were those spent in the schola at St. Paul’s in Cambridge, MA where the reform as envisioned by Theodore Marier achieved its full glory. It was a vision bringing a diverse population together and giving hope for providing a model beyond the confines of Harvard Square. The latter never materialized and it’s intriguing that after leaving the choir school he founded, Marier took a turn to the right and worked exclusively in Usus Antiquior settings. Was it a tragic loss or did he just see the writing on the wall?
  • Those who take "Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion" as something beyond the mainstream, only for certain circumstances, should also take "Extraordinary Form" in the same light.
    So much for wide and generous...
    Latin NO isn't a "compromise" - if celebrated properly, there is very little that is directly theologically deficient when compared to the TLM. More importantly, it cements that a hard-line dichotomy between free-for-all NO and stuffy, legalistic TLM Masses does not actually exist.
    But who determines what constitutes "proper" celebration? Does it mean you use a Latin responsorial psalm instead of the gradual? Or insist on congregational singing of the Credo and Sanctus even though other parts of the Ordinary are in polyphony? Or that you don't genuflect to the Blessed Sacrament during the liturgy if you have business in the sanctuary? And then what of the "very little" you admit is "theologically deficient when compared to the TLM"?
    The latter never materialized and it’s intriguing that after leaving the choir school he founded, Marier took a turn to the right and worked exclusively in Usus Antiquior settings. Was it a tragic loss or did he just see the writing on the wall?
    It's enlightening to look into the positions taken by Messiaen, Duruflé, and Langlais after the council. The same can be said for certain leaders of the [old] Liturgical Movement such as Martin Hellriegel.
  • Mr. Nichols is spot on...

    The difficulty is that it is not the ritual that is really the problem, it is the people. If we were to take Kwasniewski's new approach to its conclusion, we would still be dealing with the fact but there are many people in the pews who would react even worse to the old ritual, then they would react to slight reforms of the present ritual.

    So the effective upshot of this new radical traditionalism is to create a parallel Church and to give up any hope of real communion with more mainstream Catholics. Which, in my experience of mainstream Catholics, [would be an unfair presumption to make about someone, simply because they do not prefer or even wish to attend the Tridentine Mass]. There are plenty of pious, devout Catholic men and women who love Christ in the Eucharist, and Beauty in the liturgy, who see no reason to return to the older books. What law have they broken? We cannot abandon them to the [whims of progressive liturgists and musicians] just because they happen to value the use of vernacular in the liturgy. And after all, when the word of God is proclaimed in the old Mass, it's in translation.

    EDIT: Removed and [replaced] inflammatory language that caused offence, with apologies.
  • This is going from stuffy to arrogantly stupid to crazy people
    I would like to request that the forum moderator insert a reminder into this thread.
  • GambaGamba
    Posts: 284
    It's pretty standard (and tolerated by legitimate authority) in German-speaking countries to include German hymns and motets at EF High Masses, even replacing parts of the Proper or Ordinary. In the Anglosphere, why would it be desirable to include pieces that are neither in the vernacular nor the liturgical language? It would seem to contradict another reason you stated above, i.e.: "Speakers of all languages find themselves united (save for the homily) and on equal footing; no group is left out."


    @Madorganist, I could think of a variety of mundane reasons – maybe St. Stanislaus of Suburbia wants to hear "W żłobie leży" sometime on Christmas Eve, to honor the memory of their Polish founders; or Santa Maria in Little Italy wants to sing "Mira il tuo popolo" on their patronal feast, etc.

    Or, maybe the choir is good, and capable of singing in many languages, and thus can bring home beautiful music from the world over, actually singing Rachmaninov's authentic Богородице Дево instead of some bawdlerized-Ave-Maria adaptation. I would suppose that in most churches with properly lush acoustics, those who comprehend every word the choir is singing, comprehend it by reading the worship aid, rather than by picking out every word. Thus, once the propers are squared away, I see no reason to reject additional choral music based on language; if the music is worthwhile and the text is appropriate, why should it be rejected?
    Thanked by 3CHGiffen JL hilluminar
  • I'm decisively attached to the EF now, but I found the OF in Latin to be a helpful transition and hope there would be more of it.

    I don't know if others had the same experience, but it was difficult for me to go from the OF in English (as commonly celebrated) to the EF.
  • IdeK
    Posts: 79
    If I remember correctly, at WYD in Madrid, Pope Benedict's mass was mostly in Latin.

    In this special occasion, it was very fitting, since there were there people of thousand of languages. And as a French girl who had learned Latin and no Spanish at school, I was really glad of the choice !
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,863
    To Kwasniewski and many others committed to the old rite, reform is wishful thinking.

    The problem I have with the Reform... is it is unstable, we are left at the mercy of the whims of Bishops, Parish priests and Celebrants.
    1. We can build a choir and a sacred music programme for the N.O. and tomorrow it can be taken away.
    2. Also the clown mass uses the same Missal that the London Oratory uses.
    At least with the E.F. they take away our Mass so we move on, join a new centre or found another one. I can think of a number of places that have gained choirs and musicians thanks to them being thrown out for places going all 'clown mess'
    Marier took a turn to the right and worked exclusively in Usus Antiquior settings. Was it a tragic loss or did he just see the writing on the wall?

    In the E.F. we always know what music we need to provide for a sung Mass. I can choose which Gregorian or polyphonic Mass setting we will use, while my N.O. colleagues have to beg to be able to sing the Credo, and are told it must be spoken.
    This is going from stuffy to arrogantly stupid to crazy people
    I would like to request that the forum moderator insert a reminder into this thread.

    I am happy living in our TLM catacombs, but is it arrogant for us to ignore the mainstream and leave it to it's ever precipitous decline? Could we be doing more good outside our niche? Are we stuffy? I don't really care what people think of us, minds change and we can lead by example. Where we are currently, an E.F. community in an N.O. parish, some of the parishioners did not like us and our Liturgy, 15-20 years later most of them now attend our Masses.
  • Are we stuffy?
    Stuffy?, Elitist?, Uppity?, etc. These and similar epithets have absolutely no objective meaning or reference when applied to one's musical or artistic preferences. They are best ignored or put down. What they really mean is 'I don't at all like this, so I will say that something is wrong with it, not me'.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • This is going from stuffy to arrogantly stupid to crazy people
    I would like to request that the forum moderator insert a reminder into this thread.


    It's a fair cop, my language was quite strong there, sorry. Edited previous comment to remove it and state my case more reasonably. To clarify, though, I did intend to apply those terms to the most extreme implications of the positions in question, not the usual forms held by most people.

    Better way to put it:

    I would hate to see a world in which devout people attached to the NO are deprived of the ministrations of orthodox and orthoprax musicians and clergy, because these have all left for traditionalism, given the increasing disappearance of the RotR and its replacement with strong traditionalism.

  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,518
    I would hate to see a world in which devout people attached to the NO are deprived of the ministrations of orthodox and orthoprax musicians and clergy, because these have all left for traditionalism, given the increasing disappearance of the RotR and its replacement with strong traditionalism.


    True. The current traditionalism is more extremist and in need of reform than any that existed in 1960. Not good.

    Worry not, I say unto you. If Pope Francis stays in office a few more years, we will all be pleasant and harmless Unitarians.
  • Some things were removed from the NO, like the Last Gospel and prayers at the foot of the altar, that should have been included. However, I do not see the NO as fundamentally inferior to the TLM or lacking in legitimacy.

    I recognize the EF for what it is - a legitimate, holy, and extraordinary option. I do not believe it will ever be the "normal", although I believe it should always be an option and as widely celebrated as is practical. To ignore the NO and essentially give up on a large portion of the Church is a problematic attitude, in my view.
  • The current traditionalism is more extremist and in need of reform than any that existed in 1960. Not good.


    Would you care to elaborate on the topic of what needs reform?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,518
    The people, mostly.

    Will discuss later when I am not trying to leave and go to work.
  • fcbfcb
    Posts: 273
    Pluscarden Abbey in Scotland does the Novus Ordo in Latin, except for the readings and (on Sundays) the Universal Prayer. Also, almost the whole thing is sung (again, the readings excepted). The ritual, however, is pretty much by-the-book Novus Ordo--no real attempt to make it look Tridentine. So there is concelebration and communion under both species, etc.

    From what I can tells, their Office is the pre-conciliar monastic Office (including Prime).
  • In places I'm familiar with if the bishop doesn't or parish priest doesn't let you celebrate the TLM he certainly won't let you mangle the people's NOM by doing it in Latin, with chant, or with anything else that reeks of conservative Catholicism.
  • Conservative is a political term, not a religious one. People are either orthodox, heterodox, or in schism.
    Thanked by 3CharlesW a_f_hawkins JL
  • The people, mostly.

    1. Take away what is most dear to people without warning, explanation, or apology.
    2. When they react, declare that the people are the problem, not the taking away.
    3. Rinse and repeat.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,025
    The opinion of Fr. Adrian Fortescue:
    It is a queer type of mind that actually is interested in knowing whether the deacon should stand at the right or the left of someone else at some moment
    and a tiny sample of what he wrote when commissioned to describe what the rubricists had laid down
    If the Sanctissimum be reserved in the tabernacle, he first genuflects, otherwise he bows low towards the altar cross. He incenses the altar cross with three double incensings. Then he either genuflects or bows, as he did before. If there are relics or images between the candlesticks he next incenses these, first those on the gospel side, making two double swings of the thurible for all of them together, without moving himself from the middle of the altar, or bowing to them. He again bows to the cross, or genuflects to the Blessed Sacrament, and incenses in the same way those on the epistle side. Then, without again bowing or genuflecting, he continues the incensing of the altar. He walks before the altar to the epistle side ; as he does so he incenses it over the upper part, the mensa, with three single swings of the thurible, one opposite each of the altar candles. At the epistle corner he swings the thurible twice along the side, then returns to the middle, again making ...
    Churches of the Orthodox tradition seem to achieve dignified, and more importantly God-centered, worship without the need to reduce the sacred ministers to automata.
    Thanked by 2GerardH hilluminar
  • >> Conservative is a political term, not a religious one. People are either orthodox, heterodox, or in schism.

    not a religious term? at least in the US, there are conservative Jews; between orthodox and reform ... I have known several who called themselves that.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • (capitalized) Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Judaism are separate denominations. Contrast orthodox Catholics and capital-O Orthodox Christians. In one sense it's merely a descriptive term, and in the other it is a full-blown denomination.
  • re: conservative, ok, but that's what people say in common conversation, "conservative" and "progressive" and "traditionalist". If only because if each time you talked about one or the other you said "apostate" or "schismatic" you'd just have a fist fight all day long, and not be able to carry on with the other point you are trying to make.

    Re: Mr. Hawkins and the dignity of orthodox liturgy despite presumably having no rubrics, if I were to write down how exactly to make bread dough the way my mother taught me (which I learned by watching and doing, and is not written), it would sound like Father Fortescue's elaborate description. I would have to describe the each movement of the body, etc. and how exactly one evaluates the readiness of the dough for the next step, etc. It's all well and good to say "sprinkle flour on the kneading surface" but this presumes the reader has a quit good knowledge of the overall process, materials, movements, measurements, etc by oral tradition and actual experience. Once a person has learned the movements and style of an activity, be it driving a car or arranging flowers, it no longer needs to be written in great detail. It's often much easier to learn physically, by having someone show you and walking through the steps and gestures over and over. I have participated in a seminarian training to learn the TLM, with the help of an acolyte who knew it well. In four sessions he had the said Mass down. I assisted at a new priest's first solemn TLM this week, which is more like the Byzantine rite liturgies I've seen in involving more people, each with different tasks. They practiced their entrances, movements - and he practiced the incensing gestures described above! - the day before, learning by imitation from the guidance of a more experienced priest, not by reading a book. When I assisted at a Byzantine rite Catholic liturgy a few times it seemed to me there were several assistants to the priest and they all had very specific roles and things were done in a specific way. A friend of mine who was given a role helping was shown several times how to comport himself, where to go, where to turn, stand, approach, step back etc. so that he could correctly hold the candlestick he was honored to hold.

    As in any group activity, whether in a restaurant or on a football field or in a jazz band it matters where you stand if only so you are prepared to turn the page, bring something, take something, and not constantly run into the people around you.
    Thanked by 3tomjaw Elmar dad29
  • Don9of11Don9of11
    Posts: 355
    When I was growing up in St. Mary's between 1970 to 1994 we had a "Latin" Mass on the last Sunday of the month. It was the Novus Order with the Latin added. I think it definitely offers an advantage over the TLM because 1) we sang hymns both Latin and devotional when appropriate, we also used the WLP missalet of the day 2) we sang Latin Mass settings (ie, La Hache, Cremers, Mentzel and others) 3) depending on the celebrant and his ambition the Eucharistic prayer were chanted in Latin, else it was English. In all the masses the choir had to respond depending on what the priest did. We even had a pamphlet printed with English and Latin side by side. The other advantage over the TLM is it's not all chant, chant, chant. The organist who ultimately served 67 years was well acquainted with the TLM from long ago and the new requirements that were needed. I will say it was a beautiful blend of old and new. It can be done.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW hilluminar
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,025
    Yes certainly liturgy requires practice, and also understanding.
    There was an editorial in Notitiae in 1968 on the gestures of the celebrant. (Apparently issued only in French, English at DOL#42.*) Commenting, presumably, on the previously existing situation it asks "How can gestures that have become mechanical from habit, sloppy from routine, half-hearted from apathy, still function as signs of the work of salvation?" Calling for "gestures that are beautiful, decorous, and expressive", it emphasises "these things must be learned: how to stand erect, bow, genuflect, how to bow over to kiss the altar, how to make the sign of the cross over the elements, .... "

    * Documents on the Liturgy, Liturgical Press, Collegeville
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,119
    conservative Jews; between orthodox and reform

    They're not exactly in the order you might expect: it is at Conservative synagogues that I've worked with women Rabbis & Cantors and fine organists, while the Reform congregation can be liturgically relatively conservative (a barely musical male cantor backed by a professional choir behind a screen singing "toot" from an organ accompaniment score).
    Conservative " regards the authority of Jewish law and tradition as emanating primarily from the assent of the people and the community through the generations, more than from divine revelation." (and in my limited experience committed to 19th century traditions)
    Reform "emphasizes the evolving nature of the faith, the superiority of its ethical aspects to the ceremonial ones, and belief in a continuous revelation, closely intertwined with human reason and intellect"
    Orthodox "collective term for the traditionalist branches of contemporary Judaism … They are almost uniformly exclusionist"