Latin Novus Ordo … thoughts?
  • The Mass I attend every Sunday and Wednesday at the local Benedictine abbey, has all the Propers and Ordinary in Latin (Greek Kyrie of course); the rest is chanted in French plainchant, very effectively and beautifully I might add; even the readings are chanted. The only thing not chanted is the homily, and the intercessions on weekdays.

    The local nuns of the same congregation (Solesmes) do the whole thing in Latin except for the readings, for which they alternate between French and English as they have nuns/postulants from both language groups.

    All in the Ordinary Form of course. Works beautifully in both instances, though the nuns chant too darned high for my tastes.

    One of my favourite monks also often celebrates a private OF Mass with me. At my request, he does it all in Latin, including the readings (I read the Epistle and the Psalm), but it's recited, not sung. It also works very well.

    Personally I prefer the OF for reasons I won't get into here, but the biggest one is that it's familiar. I'm too young to remember the Tridentine Mass (and at 61 too darned old for too many things), the 60s when I grew up was the time of experimentation.

    Ora
    Thanked by 1hilluminar
  • 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.


    Agree with this quote - that has always puzzled me too. I can only guess those who wanted to stay traditional didn't look to the Anglicans as the model, and at the same time the active reformers wanted something less "formal" and more "popular" - hence folk music. And the tidal wave of the zeitgeist was obviously supporting the folk thing in the mid to late sixties. Oh well. Missed opportunity.
    Thanked by 1cesarfranck
  • I can only guess those who wanted to stay traditional didn't look to the Anglicans as the model, and at the same time the active reformers wanted something less "formal" and more "popular" - hence folk music. And the tidal wave of the zeitgeist was obviously supporting the folk thing in the mid to late sixties.


    This is my understanding. I can’t recall where I saw it, but my memory is that an Anglican bishop/theologian/someone commented to an in-the-know Vatican type that English-speaking Catholics could just piggy-back on existing Anglican translations, and the Vatican guy just laughed him off.

    I suspect the sentiment was not unlike what gave birth to Rite 2 in the 1979 U.S. BCP: “modern man” needed something less high-falutin’, more quotidian, blah-de-blah. And also yellow walls, bell-bottoms, and disco. Modern man desperately needed those.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,053
    One word suffices to explain why English-speaking Catholics did not follow the Anglican model: Ireland. The Irish were still emigrating in large numbers (to the UK and US) bringing a deep attachment to Catholicism as a cultural badge, and with it a loathing of the Protestant Ascendancy and the Anglican establishment. The founding of the Ordinariates still met cultural resistance in England. Add that to the zeitgeist, and ... .
    A great missed opportunity!
  • Carl DCarl D
    Posts: 992
    At our parish, we've now had two young priests who enjoyed the Latin Eucharistic Prayers on a regular basis - not always, but maybe half the time. I believe they did this because they understand how important it is for the priest to understand the Mass in its native language.

    It fits in really well with our particular Mass, where we sing all the ordinaries in Latin and often many of the other sung elements. This Mass attracts quite a diverse crowd, with many students and young families.

    Our most recent young priest often chants the Eucharistic Prayers, usually in Latin. Our parish pastor supports all this, even though he's not confident enough to do Latin himself.
  • True. The current traditionalism is more extremist and in need of reform than any that existed in 1960. Not good.


    Respectfully, this comment needs a great deal more clarification. I have absolutely no idea what it means. I challenge you to come to my church on a Sunday morning and find this to be true.

    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.


    Pope Francis, in December 2016, said that “to speak of the ‘reform of the reform’ is an error.” If I understand it correctly, the idea of the reform of the reform was to get back to what the post-concilliar documents had written up on the correct way to say and pray the new Mass and away from many of the widespread abuses that came about as a result of ignorance/manipulation. What does it mean if the pope himself rejects the attempt at fixing those errors?

    Also, being devout is not to remain united to any form as if it was a football fan to a particular team - e.g. Packers vs. Vikings vs. Bears. If the Ordinary Form of the Mass offered as many spiritually necessary goods, but in a different order and perhaps to a different emphasis, then I'd have no problem with it. Take the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, for example. Certainly, the emphasis and the manner in which the liturgy works is different than in the TLM, but the spiritual goods are there, and in great number. But if the violations of the Ordinary Form (already lacking some of those good old Catholic things from the past) can't even be cleaned up because the clean-up is not desired, then why expend so much energy to try to do so? I applaud the pastors out there and those who work for them who operate with one mind in order to try to improve things. Their instincts are right but they are one parish council meeting, one rich, left-leaning parishioner, one bishop change, etc... away from seeing the entire project go up in smoke. To go that route is one of constant frustration, disappointment, and head-slapping. If only there was a better way...

    Frankly, I don’t have time for these games. My children need to learn how to pray well so that they can learn to believe well so that they can learn to live well so they can get to Heaven. Either He’s God and deserves to be addressed as such, (even if it irritates non-Catholics) or He’s not. Compare these three:

    “Lord God Almighty, You alone are holy. You accept the sacrifice of praise from those who call upon You with their whole heart, even so, accept from us sinners our supplication, and bring it to Your holy Altar of sacrifice. Enable us to offer You gifts and spiritual sacrifices for our own sins and the failings of Your people. Deem us worthy to find grace in Your sight, that our sacrifice may be well pleasing to You, and that the good Spirit of Your grace may rest upon us and upon these gifts presented and upon all Your people.” -Offertory from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (Praise, Contrition, Petition - mentions the holiness of God, that we are sinners, altar, sacrifice, grace)

    “Accept, holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this immaculate victim, which I, your unworthy servant, offer to you, my God, living and true, for my uncountable sins, offenses, and omissions and for all those who are standing here but also for all faithful Christians living and dead, that it may effectively gain for me and for them salvation and eternal life. Amen.” -Offertory from the Traditional Latin Mass (Praise, Contrition, Petition - mentions the holiness of God, the nature of He who is being offered ('immaculate victim'), that we are sinners, offered for living and the dead, our unworthiness, salvation, eternal life, the distinctive nature of the priest's offering vs the peoples')

    “Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation, for through your goodness we have received the bread we offer you: fruit of the earth and work of human hands, it will become for us the bread of life." -Offertory from the Ordinary Form of the Mass (Praise - mentions the goodness of God, the nature of bread)

    If you are devout, and are not being fed, go where you can be fed. "Why spend money on what is not bread, and your labor on what does not satisfy? Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good, and you will delight in the richest of fare." (Isaiah 55:2)
  • The current traditionalism is more extremist and in need of reform than any that existed in 1960. Not good.

    Respectfully, this comment needs a great deal more clarification.

    I agree, Jacob. People who make the above generalization often attempt to rationalize the "thought process" behind it based on interactions they had at some point with people identifying as "traditionalists".

    It is unfortunate that people who think like this don't seem to realize... we ALL have had bad interactions with other Christians (or Catholics, in this context) at some point... whether they attend the Latin Mass or the vernacular. There are curmudgeons in every group; there are people with deep prejudices in every group; there are people who are reasonable in every group.

    To paint the entirety of a given segment of the Church with one brush based on personal interactions is necessarily short-sighted and flawed.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,053
    JacobFlaherty - you should for completeness also quote the OF prayer after the 'table prayer' over the wine :-
    the Priest, bowing profoundly, says quietly
    With humble and with contrite heart may we be accepted by you, O Lord,
    and may our sacrifice in your sight this day be pleasing to you, Lord God.
  • It is very interesting to me personally that the issue of Jewish denominational distinctions, as well as comments on the musicians employed in synagogues should come up in this thread.

    As the (likely) only Catholic who has worked at both of the two largest Reform synagogues in my city (organ maintenance - large four manual Casavants in each), I can say I found a very interesting parallel between Reform Jewish liturgiopraxis and the different expressions of modern day Ordinary Form Catholic worship.

    The first of the two Reform congregations referred to themselves as "Classical Reform" which I deduced from observation meant ascribing to the Reformist theological perspective, but conducting worship services in a (dare I say it?) "high church" manner, with genuinely religious/spiritual significance and dignified choral singing, including hymnody, and much solo organ literature. In retrospect, I came to refer to this synagogue (privately to myself, that is) as a kind of "Jewish Brompton Oratory".

    The second synagogue was a sort of Reform synagogue version of what we would call an evangelical "mega church", with lots of emphasis on bringing young families in for "meaningful" Jewish experiences. I began to refer to this place (again, privately to myself) as a combination Jewish "Charismatic renewal" mixed with Jewish "LifeTeen".

    In BOTH cases, however, "Reform" did not equate with any of the stereotypical characteristics ascribed to your garden-variety suburban "temples" (i.e.: emphasis on social justice, left-wing politics, minimalist religious practice, "cultural Jewishness" versus Judaic observance). These were congregations that, although thoroughly committed to the Reform enterprise, nonetheless conducted themselves as genuine houses of worship,

    Those of us in the "Reform of the Reform", "Mutual Enrichment", "Latin Novus Ordo", or whatever people chose to call our "constituency" in the church, would likely find much to admire in such an environment (well...the "Classical Reform" one, anyway).

    Gaudete in Domino Semper!
  • Jacob,

    Regarding the Holy Father's words, the Catholic Herald had a pretty full and balanced account of his statement, in which his goals seem to line up nicely with what you suggested were the goals of the "reform of the reform" (emphasis mine):

    New liturgical books were promulgated, the Pope said, but there is “still work to do” in reforming people’s mentality – “in particular rediscovering the reasons for the decisions made with the liturgical reform and overcoming unfounded and superficial readings, partial receptions and practices that disfigure it.

    This did not mean “rethinking the reform”, the Pope argued, but “knowing better the underlying reasons [for it]… [and] of internalising its inspirational principles and of observing the discipline that governs it.”


    I would suggest that His Holiness is condemning something other than the perspective you indicated.

    Also, being devout is not to remain united to any form as if it was a football fan to a particular team - e.g. Packers vs. Vikings vs. Bears. If the Ordinary Form of the Mass offered as many spiritually necessary goods, but in a different order and perhaps to a different emphasis, then I'd have no problem with it.


    I think you've inadvertently inverted my original statement. I did not mean to suggest that the devout are only attached to the OF. I merely meant to indicate that there are many, many orthodox, devout souls, often daily communicants, deeply attached to the postconciliar rites, and who wish, rightfully so, to experience these rites celebrated in a manner that is visibly in continuity with the broader Catholic past.

    My primary point of reference for the existence of this demographic is actually my work with youth.

    But if the violations of the Ordinary Form (already lacking some of those good old Catholic things from the past) can't even be cleaned up because the clean-up is not desired, then why expend so much energy to try to do so? I applaud the pastors out there and those who work for them who operate with one mind in order to try to improve things. Their instincts are right but they are one parish council meeting, one rich, left-leaning parishioner, one bishop change, etc... away from seeing the entire project go up in smoke. To go that route is one of constant frustration, disappointment, and head-slapping. If only there was a better way...


    Ultimately, however, living and working in union with the Universal Church, one is always at most only a bad bishop away from real trouble, whether one works within the EF or OF context. On a professional / interpersonal / job-security level, I don't think, based on my experience in both worlds, that I would sleep any better at night just because I worked for an EF parish. People are people wherever you go, and priests are people too, for better and for worse.

    I used to experience tremendous anxiety about this idea, namely, that a "life's work" in sacred music could be undone in an instant. I was desperate for insurance against this. Agonized over it. But then, I found a great deal of peace, primarily in the following considerations:

    1) Most of the "lasting programs" against which I unfavorably compared the prospects for longevity that my own would enjoy, were themselves undone in the wake of the musical upheaval following the Council. But even though they are gone, they didn't "fail" on that account. They succeeded in a very important way, really the only important way: they worshipped God in concrete, particular liturgical acts, and they formed particular souls and helped fit them for heaven.

    2) Yes, my program might collapse for politics and other reasons, but beyond those considerations: I will infallibly drop dead at some point in the (nearer-than-I'd-like-to-imagine) future. As a wonderful old Franciscan delighted to tell me, "Cemeteries are full of indispensable people." A program with a pedigree and generations of longevity is a particular gift, but it can't be the goal per se. After all, nothing lasts forever.

    3) So if indefinite longevity itself is not the goal, then what is? Ultimately, to contribute to the liturgical worship of Almighty God even in a single instance is an inexpressibly awesome privilege. None of us function liturgically by right. So each liturgy we are privileged to sing and to play for is a gratuitous gift.

    To make beautiful music to glorify God, and which will place souls in contact with truth, goodness, and beauty in the context of the Sacred Liturgy, even just once, is my highest aspiration. As the song goes: what they have seen, heard, sung, and experienced -- "they can't take that away from me."

    Let us labor while it is yet day: if the pastor, the choir, and the people are in a position to accept and benefit from the work, then work as well as you are able. If the situation becomes more difficult, but it seems promising to stay and fight, do so. If you are compelled to leave, chances are that it was not fruitless. You met souls that God intended you to meet, you formed them in ways known only to Him, and the sacred song you made together will, God willing, echo through eternity. That's not failure in the least sense. It's the most, in the ultimate sense (temporal / repertoire goals aside) any of us can hope to do in our line of work.

    In the end, the old admonition that I still find lying around in Sacristies the world over is perhaps the best way to put it:

    "Pray this Mass as if it were your first Mass, your last Mass, your only Mass."

    Because, ultimately, if Our Lord placed you in a parish and let you build and train a choir for sixteen years, for the sole purpose of assisting at the offering of a single worthy Divine Liturgy, the privilege of doing so would be a treasure worth more than all the gold in the world.

    Frankly, I don’t have time for these games. My children need to learn how to pray well so that they can learn to believe well so that they can learn to live well so they can get to Heaven. Either He’s God and deserves to be addressed as such, (even if it irritates non-Catholics) or He’s not. Compare these three:


    Leaving aside historical provenance, and with the (necessary) augmentation to the third quote suggested my Mr. Hawkins, as well as the further context of the "Orate Fratres," I actually found the comparison on a literal, textual / theological level interesting, and hardly obvious.

    In a certain sense, the Tridentine offertory is the most confusing on a verbal level, anticipating as it does the Presence-yet-to-be-effected that will overtake the Gifts. It alone refers to the as-yet unconsecrated elements as "this immaculate victim." The other prayers, that in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the Ordinary Form, clearly differentiate the offering of the gifts of bread and wine with the Sacrifice of Christ that will be re-presented, although they also clearly relate the two and draw together the idea of our imperfect offering being taken up into Christ's perfect Sacrifice.

    I think each Offertory rite, as a whole, does express the same content. I think, however, much of the oblation language in the OF was reserved for the Anaphora, largely as a result of a desire to clearly distinguish the offering of bread from the Sacrifice of Christ, which desire ultimately is a result of centuries of intervening theological reflections from the circa 11th-century introduction of the EF Offertory prayers to the present day. It surprises the scholastic mind, which likes to distill essences, how holistic and perhaps free-wheeling historical liturgical prayers actually are. The whole act is treated as a united whole, rather than divided into its constituent parts clearly and distinctly.

    For this reason, I find the reformed rites very, well, scholastic in character.
  • Because, ultimately, if Our Lord placed you in a parish and let you build and train a choir for sixteen years, for the sole purpose of assisting at the offering of a single worthy Divine Liturgy, the privilege of doing so would be a treasure worth more than all the gold in the world.


    I think that could cover much of life, too ('if God has placed me here in this life, in this moment for the sole purpose of glorifying Him by making scrambled eggs/sweeping the floor/etc, the privilege of doing so is a treasure worth more than all the gold in the world..."). A worthy meditation, thanks!
  • JacobFlaherty - you should for completeness also quote the OF prayer after the 'table prayer' over the wine :-

    With humble and with contrite heart may we be accepted by you, O Lord,
    and may our sacrifice in your sight this day be pleasing to you, Lord God.


    I didn't include this because I only included the Offering of the bread/host. If I had included the part you wrote here, I would've added the corresponding text for the TLM:

    "Humbled in mind, and contrite of heart, may we find favour with Thee, O Lord; and may the sacrifice we this day offer up be well pleasing to Thee, Who art our Lord and our God.
    Come, Thou, the Sanctifier, God, almighty and everlasting: bless (✠) this sacrifice which is prepared for the glory of Thy holy name."

    I think you've inadvertently inverted my original statement. I did not mean to suggest that the devout are only attached to the OF. I merely meant to indicate that there are many, many orthodox, devout souls, often daily communicants, deeply attached to the postconciliar rites, and who wish, rightfully so, to experience these rites celebrated in a manner that is visibly in continuity with the broader Catholic past.


    I didn't think you were saying that only the devout are attached to the OF. Obviously we know that's not true. But what I was saying was that I believe it to be an error to believe that we ought to be so attached to our rites that we could not see ourselves being Catholic without them. But what about my attachment to Traditional Catholicism? My response is two-fold:
    A.) If the Novus Ordo/Ordinary Form offered as much sustenance for the journey in the form of all-be-it differently ordered and differently emphasized theological content, but in the same quantity and of still high theology, then it's simply a matter of preferences. But the content is not the same, otherwise there wouldn't be two distinct forms. (I can hear the complaints emerging: "Who are you or anyone else to critique theological content?" To that I'd simply point out that this forum critiques all sorts of content in great number by many people every single day.)
    B.) If one wishes to "experience rites visibly in continuity with the broader Catholic past, wouldn't they embrace TRADITION, for that's what even Webster's Dictionary defines it as: "the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way." And we see this not just in our Catholic world, but also in Protestantism. The closer one is to the Catholic Faith, (certain kinds of Lutherans, Prysbeterians, Anglicans, etc...) the more Catholic the sanctuary is, with an altar, candles, etc... The farther one is, we see sanctuaries with less Catholic "stuff", less rituals, less liturgy, more improvisation, etc... The point: if one desires a rite in continuity with the broader Catholic past, how about go straight to the source?

    On a professional / interpersonal / job-security level, I don't think, based on my experience in both worlds, that I would sleep any better at night just because I worked for an EF parish.


    Respectfully, especially as we know one-another outside this arena, I have to tell you that this is just simply not an accurate statement, and your good fortune of working where you work has perhaps shielded you from the dangers that are apparent "out there". I have never once worried about my job-security like I did in the five years at one parish and the two years at another, (in Minnesota and in South Dakota) in which I was treated miserably by two very "conservative" priests who said that I "didn't have the pulse of the people" even though I was only doing classic hymns, little chant, and zero Latin. Your pastor is all-class all the way, and I respect and love him as a father-figure, and I will go on saying this.

    So if indefinite longevity itself is not the goal, then what is? Ultimately, to contribute to the liturgical worship of Almighty God even in a single instance is an inexpressibly awesome privilege. None of us function liturgically by right. So each liturgy we are privileged to sing and to play for is a gratuitous gift.

    To make beautiful music to glorify God, and which will place souls in contact with truth, goodness, and beauty in the context of the Sacred Liturgy, even just once, is my highest aspiration. As the song goes: what they have seen, heard, sung, and experienced -- "they can't take that away from me."


    You write as well as anyone on this board, and I thank you for your reflections. However, the highest goal of Liturgical action is two-fold: 1.) The glory of God and 2.) the edification of the faithful. My soul and the souls of those "out there" depend, in some part on what I do and give, and in a greater part on the truths the liturgical whole presents. I am not a good enough writer to competently compete with the many others who can say it better than I, but it is clear that the TLM offers a higher Catholic ethos by impressing upon the Catholic the concepts of grace, sin, judgment, sacrifice, atonement, adoration in a way at least much higher than what you'll find in the NO. To top that off, the manners which are restricted in the TLM (but allowed in the NO and, in some cases, abuses/practices that have become quasi-rubrical) that directly compete with any attempt to present these higher things in the NO actually does further damage to the end-product by creating cognitive dissonance amongst the faithful. Byrd's Ave Verum Corpus with 10 Eucharistic Ministers? Consider the effect killed and the good hoped for nullified.

    Let us labor while it is yet day: if the pastor, the choir, and the people are in a position to accept and benefit from the work, then work as well as you are able. If the situation becomes more difficult, but it seems promising to stay and fight, do so. If you are compelled to leave, chances are that it was not fruitless. You met souls that God intended you to meet, you formed them in ways known only to Him, and the sacred song you made together will, God willing, echo through eternity. That's not failure in the least sense. It's the most, in the ultimate sense (temporal / repertoire goals aside) any of us can hope to do in our line of work.


    But does God actively will that we should encounter experiences within His very Church that actually nullify the good work attempting to be done within it? It is fine and well to say that God passively wills such things, as He governs the whole world and all the ways we choose to use our wills (both for good and for ill) in His Divine Providence. But that is not to say He desires this evil. Scripture is chalk-full of references that He desires our good, and, since a kingdom can not work against itself and stand, it is incoherent to say that God actually wills the destruction of a work in His Church that seeks to glorify Him and make Him more known and loved if that work is also being done in a competent, honest, humble, loving, and inspiring way.

    In a certain sense, the Tridentine offertory is the most confusing on a verbal level, anticipating as it does the Presence-yet-to-be-effected that will overtake the Gifts. It alone refers to the as-yet unconsecrated elements as "this immaculate victim."


    This is a minute point, it seems to me. Nobody is confused by what is happening here. The priest is offering the bread that will becomethe immaculate victim. How is calling it "bread of the earth and of human hands" helping strengthen the Catholic understanding of this mystery about to unfold? If I was to call our Lord an "immaculate victim" to a kid, they'd ask, "A victim of what?" I'd ask them and they'd eventually figure it out: "A victim who gave up his life on the cross for our sins."
  • One more point:

    Most of the "lasting programs" against which I unfavorably compared the prospects for longevity that my own would enjoy, were themselves undone in the wake of the musical upheaval following the Council. But even though they are gone, they didn't "fail" on that account. They succeeded in a very important way, really the only important way: they worshipped God in concrete, particular liturgical acts, and they formed particular souls and helped fit them for heaven.


    But because they were good, their eventual destruction (not God's will) caused more souls that could've benefited from being build on solid ground from coming to know and love Christ, which may have caused them to miss "knowing the eternal God and He whom He sent - Jesus Christ." (John 17:3) This is the very stuff of eternal life! To say that while they were there it was of value to those who they encountered is true, but so too is it fair to say that the elimination of it was to the DETERMENT of those who missed it.
  • I didn't think you were saying that only the devout are attached to the OF. Obviously we know that's not true. But what I was saying was that I believe it to be an error to believe that we ought to be so attached to our rites that we could not see ourselves being Catholic without them. But what about my attachment to Traditional Catholicism? My response is two-fold:


    It sounds as if you are saying that you cannot see yourself being Catholic without the rites you prefer. I'm not trying to ask that or put it in a loaded way -- I kind of puzzled over the point you were making in this paragraph, and that seems to be it. I would certainly hope that isn't the case!

    A.) If the Novus Ordo/Ordinary Form offered as much sustenance for the journey in the form of all-be-it differently ordered and differently emphasized theological content, but in the same quantity and of still high theology, then it's simply a matter of preferences. But the content is not the same, otherwise there wouldn't be two distinct forms.


    In terms of sacramental grace, of course the graces imparted by the Sacrament are equivalent.

    In terms of theological / ritual content, I think we can speak of three aspects:

    1) Objective content (propositional)
    2) The presentation of that content (rhetorical)
    3) The reception of that content (subjective/pastoral)

    All three matter, in terms of disposing the soul to receive the sacramental grace God is offering in the Sacrament.

    Most people with a strong preference for the OF, and orthodox faith, don't balk at (1) as it is found in the EF. They believe all of those things, as a result of good catechism. The language and ritual barrier, for them, is so strong, that they find (2) ineffective at inculcating in them the appropriate dispositions of (3).

    I still believe everything I was taught in Sunday school about what the Mass is and how I should be properly disposed to receive the Sacraments. The EF has not altered that belief with different objective content on that level.

    The point: if one desires a rite in continuity with the broader Catholic past, how about go straight to the source?


    If the rite is in continuity already, there is not a need for a return to any source. It's not a question of ritual text and action per se, but rather the way in which the text on the page is interpreted, and the choices that are made in its celebration.

    Here's the analogy:

    The Missal of 1570 is objectively in continuity with the Ordo Romanus I. No one here disputes that. However, Jim Bob of Genoa's parish celebrates the Missal of 1570 either with music lifted from the grand opera, or in complete silence at a lighting-fast pace.

    Jim Bob would like to see the Missal of 1570 celebrated in a way that is in greater continuity with his liturgical heritage. Jim Bob wants to hear chant, wants a prayerful and dignified pace to be observed, etc.

    So, if it is granted that the Missal of 1970 exists in continuity with the Missal of 1570, the same ideas apply.

    What makes those ideas more difficult than anything in most contexts, frankly, is the language barrier. But, by the same token, vernacular liturgy is an incredibly powerful opportunity. I wouldn't want to waste it.

    Respectfully, especially as we know one-another outside this arena, I have to tell you that this is just simply not an accurate statement, and your good fortune of working where you work has perhaps shielded you from the dangers that are apparent "out there". I have never once worried about my job-security like I did in the five years at one parish and the two years at another, (in Minnesota and in South Dakota) in which I was treated miserably by two very "conservative" priests who said that I "didn't have the pulse of the people" even though I was only doing classic hymns, little chant, and zero Latin. Your pastor is all-class all the way, and I respect and love him as a father-figure, and I will go on saying this.


    Indeed my pastor is exceptional, granted all the way. However, the experience on which I form these judgments goes much deeper than my present position (I've been in this line of work for pretty fully 15 years at this point, and in Sleepy Eye 3.5 of them):

    I have worked in three diocesan parishes and three Catholic schools, middle-of-the-road trending conservative OF, before coming here. I have also collaborated with the musicians and been involved in music at EF parishes or communities very interested in and employing that tradition.

    My experience:

    1) I have dealt with exceptionally difficult priests in an EF context, who very nearly pushed out their musicians (and would have been delighted to do so). Multiple times, in making applications for jobs in the EF, I have been twice warned by friends who worked for or with these priests previously, of what sort of fate their musicians met.

    2) I have personally dealt, in those contexts (and not just in my more unique situation up here) with extreme particularity and pickiness about the musical product both among the clergy and the faithful. I'm far more reluctant to show my face in a social hour after a Latin Mass than after an OF Mass. I've had priests send servers up to alter the music mid-liturgy, been cornered by church ladies at length, listened to pastors insult the (very competent) musicians and their skills and execution. It's all there.

    I've even known of a case where a musician sent a concerned, if somewhat direct, E-mail about a perilous expenditure the parish was about to undertake. For about two years, in spite of the fact that he was absolutely right about it, he was effectively blacklisted from work there, before necessity brought about make-nice.

    3) I also know of communities in which I could have worked (was offered jobs) where the theological positions of the clergy would, inevitably, have rubbed up against my own convictions and led to a real conflict of interest. But I'm Catholic, and orthodox, so that shouldn't be an issue, ever.

    In the Covington Diocese, the OF parish where I first held the title of DoM has only, over the past 12 years since my hiring (I was there three years) only gone consistently further in the direction that I started it. If my circumstances had allowed me to keep that job, I would still be there.

    In the Cincinnati Archdiocese, the two parishes in which I worked are largely the same story. I had very positive working relationships with all the clergy, full of give-and-take, with a great deal of deference shown to my discretion and choices as the musician and choirmaster. I have every confidence that I would still be employed, had my circumstances allowed me to keep the job.

    My experience of the clergy in both of those dioceses was very positive. I got to know quite a few in Cincinnati by doing Master's studies at the archdiocesan seminary. I would feel comfortable working for most of the priests below retirement age.

    That said, the gems are truly the older pastors who are solidly formed.

    it is clear that the TLM offers a higher Catholic ethos by impressing upon the Catholic the concepts of grace, sin, judgment, sacrifice, atonement, adoration in a way at least much higher than what you'll find in the NO. [. . .] Byrd's Ave Verum Corpus with 10 Eucharistic Ministers? Consider the effect killed and the good hoped for nullified.


    To the first point, I refer again to the way in which that content is received.

    As for the Lost Tribe of Emohc -- that's a long conversation. Once again, however, most of the EMOHC's I have met do it out of (some might say misguided) genuine devotion to the Eucharist, and a desire to help administer it and spread its graces, esp. to the homebound.

    This suffices for now and contains much of what I would say to the rest. It's approaching maximal length, so I'll stop.
    Thanked by 2Schönbergian Elmar
  • One additional point re. the devout:

    I have watched my in-laws make a very interesting journey. They went from committed Catholics in a OF parish, to pretty exclusively travelling in EF circles and joining an FSSP parish, and now, finally, back again to the OF, but with a wide openness to the EF and continued involvement in it.

    There are aspects of each that they appreciate. But these decisions, and the lived realities behind them, are contextual and extremely complex. So, when you asked, "why not just go to the source," there are any number of reasons why devout people seeking liturgy and Catholic life in continuity might decide against an EF parish, even when one is available.

    And the reforms themselves were not wholly devoid of wisdom and pastoral sense.
    Thanked by 2Schönbergian Elmar
  • It sounds as if you are saying that you cannot see yourself being Catholic without the rites you prefer. I'm not trying to ask that or put it in a loaded way -- I kind of puzzled over the point you were making in this paragraph, and that seems to be it. I would certainly hope that isn't the case!

    I think we're typing past one-another. No, I'm actually saying the opposite. You made the case for the devout who were attached to the NO. What I'm saying is that if they are devout, the rite shouldn't matter as much. One might counter and say, "Okay, well, if one is devout, why should the TLM matter as much?" To which I'd counter that if the NO were on-par with what the TLM offers (albeit different), then there is no problem. My contention is that the NO is not on-par, and there-in lies my problem.
    All three matter, in terms of disposing the soul to receive the sacramental grace God is offering in the Sacrament.

    It is a little minimalistic to say that. Certainly a rite could exist which just had the words of Consecration and then Holy Communion. The sacrament would have been conferred and the people could receive and then 'The Mass is ended; go in peace.' So why not JUST leave it at that? It seems clear that the Mass is also about praise, adoration, thanksgiving, petition, contrition, reparation, etc... all in a spirit of reverence and in a rightful orientation that points to God and away from ourselves.
    Most people with a strong preference for the OF, and orthodox faith, don't balk at (1) as it is found in the EF. They believe all of those things, as a result of good catechism. The language and ritual barrier, for them, is so strong, that they find (2) ineffective at inculcating in them the appropriate dispositions of (3).

    I don't think this presupposition is based in fact, I'm afraid. Several surveys have taken place lately that reveal that those who frequent the OF Mass tend to have widely heterodox positions regarding faith and morality, with even 25% of Catholics accepting the Church's teaching of the Eucharist. Over 90% of United States Catholics use artificial contraception, according to some studies. If most people with a strong preference for the OF held orthodox positions, they wouldn't be in churches which routinely desecrate the Eucharist through indifference/liturgical abuse/improvisation and impromptu embellishment. They would be in churches like St. Agnes in St. Paul or St. Augustine's in South St. Paul, or the limited number of parishes where the way of celebrating Mass is very unique in today's age.

    I would also question how the Saints could be raised to sanctity through the TLM but these devout Catholics you cite can not be? That seems inconceivable to my mind.

    You might object saying, "I said 'most people with a strong preference for the OF and orthodox faith'. This is a pretty small portion of folks and it's getting to a point where the question has to be asked: Are the linguistic reasons so intense so as to continue forcing Father X, who'd rather be able to pray the Prayers at the Foot and the more traditional Offertory prayers and the Leonite Prayers, into the NO model?

    The examples you give about desiring more to be present at a social after the NO Mass more than the TLM is understandable, given the family and some of their allies we know we're speaking about. But as has been expressed time and time again, they know less about traditional Catholicism from theological, social, virtue-based, and common sense- based principles than nearly anyone I've ever met. Somebody in authority just needs to go and tell them off. I almost feel like that family is sometimes allowed to be just powerful enough to give the traditional-minded folks a perennially bad name, a virtual thorn in the side of anyone who cares enough. People just aren't like that here or dare I say almost anywhere, and the stench that that family has produced is toxic to breathe in. The odor should be eliminated and soon!

    I'm glad you've had good experiences. Consider yourself blessed indeed. This forum is filled with stories of people whose experiences are much different.
    Multiple times, in making applications for jobs in the EF, I have been twice warned by friends who worked for or with these priests previously, of what sort of fate their musicians met.
    The more and more I work in my setting, the more and more I realize what residue we all bring in from our post-concilliar mindsets. Perhaps your acquaintances were unfairly treated, or perhaps they made certain assumptions and brought in some very novel ideas into a traditional-minded arena, or perhaps it was some combination of the two. Experience has taught me though to be very careful about making these judgments without sitting in on the meetings themselves.
    I also know of communities in which I could have worked (was offered jobs) where the theological positions of the clergy would, inevitably, have rubbed up against my own convictions and led to a real conflict of interest. But I'm Catholic, and orthodox, so that shouldn't be an issue, ever.
    But that's the problem. As a Catholic, you shouldn't have to go searching over and over to find a Catholic church that's...Catholic. And whether it's the very curious allowances the rubrics permit, a liberal interpretation of the rubrics, or the casual make-it-up-as-you-go-along horizontal orientation that some priests employ in their parishes, with little to no correction from the ordinaries, is it any wonder that this has led to the thoughtful Catholic musician's desire to move to a more stable environment. Rubrics matter, and the new ones are sometimes loose enough and big enough to drive a truck through.
    As for the Lost Tribe of Emohc -- that's a long conversation. Once again, however, most of the EMOHC's I have met do it out of (some might say misguided) genuine devotion to the Eucharist, and a desire to help administer it and spread its graces, esp. to the homebound.
    Respectfully though, I don't believe for a second that one's "genuine devotion" to the Eucharist should permit one to do something that is inherently against the traditional practice of the Catholic Faith and which almost always leads to sacrilege, whether they know it or not. Once reserved for the hands of the anointed, keeping in mind the special indelible mark of the ordained, the Sacred Host and the other vessels are now handled by many, many others, often with no ablutions, often asked to "down the chalice" before turning it back in if it remains partially full after the reception of Holy Communion is done. I'm not intending on comparing the two, but consider the rationale: Was Abby Johnson's work at Planned Parenthood, a desire to "do good" (as she saw it), causing ideological and philosophical confusion and mayhem? Yes.

    Consider Benediction in the NO. The priest (or deacon) vests in a Cope and then a Humeral Veil, so as to not touch the Monstrance, which is housing the Luna, which is housing the Blessed Sacrament, our Eucharistic Lord, all for the purposes of conferring a blessing!!! But then, in the same church just a half-hour later, our Lord can be handled and distributed by lay people with no such anointing or veiling, all to be placed directly in the hands of others. Neither EMHC nor the lay recipient will undergo an ablution. In what universe can this dichotomy make any logical sense?

    This video is interesting up until 1:37. After that, when the young man starts talking, I can't take it. (His style grates on me pretty significantly, but the first 1.5 minutes is good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiUqDa_Gzj0

    And of course Bishop Schneider is amazing, as always: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Nv8yacWQJ4
  • "Okay, well, if one is devout, why should the TLM matter as much?" To which I'd counter that if the NO were on-par with what the TLM offers (albeit different), then there is no problem. My contention is that the NO is not on-par, and there-in lies my problem


    My difficulty with sheer ritual indifference as a benchmark of piety, is that the Church has never expected this of her faithful. Hence the particular churches and local uses. Arguably, her handling, progressively more generous, of those still attached to the EF is a stance in continuity with that overall trend. As with the Eastern Rites, at times that tolerance has been walked back unjustly.

    It is a little minimalistic to say that. Certainly a rite could exist which just had the words of Consecration and then Holy Communion. The sacrament would have been conferred and the people could receive and then 'The Mass is ended; go in peace.' So why not JUST leave it at that? It seems clear that the Mass is also about praise, adoration, thanksgiving, petition, contrition, reparation, etc... all in a spirit of reverence and in a rightful orientation that points to God and away from ourselves.


    I meant only to address the idea you seemed to set forth, that the choice should be obvious, if one simply does a side-by-side, proposition for proposition comparison between the two forms. Other factors are at work in the communication of concept to communicant. Consider the teacher who speaks fewer things simply and directly, vs. one who speaks in an elevated way about any number of topics. Sometimes, students will learn more from the first teacher, and almost nothing from the second. A different kind of student will pick up everything the other puts down, which may be more. Whom should the principal hire?

    I think you read this minimalist idea into my point.

    I don't think this presupposition is based in fact, I'm afraid. Several surveys have taken place lately that reveal that those who frequent the OF Mass tend to have widely heterodox positions regarding faith and morality, with even 25% of Catholics accepting the Church's teaching of the Eucharist. Over 90% of United States Catholics use artificial contraception, according to some studies. If most people with a strong preference for the OF held orthodox positions, they wouldn't be in churches which routinely desecrate the Eucharist through indifference/liturgical abuse/improvisation and impromptu embellishment. They would be in churches like St. Agnes in St. Paul or St. Augustine's in South St. Paul, or the limited number of parishes where the way of celebrating Mass is very unique in today's age.

    I would also question how the Saints could be raised to sanctity through the TLM but these devout Catholics you cite can not be? That seems inconceivable to my mind.


    Think numerically for a moment, though, not in proportion. In my parish, for instance, the manifestly devout and orthodox at the OF easily outnumber the total number of souls attending the EF. And the EF draws from across the diocese. Consider, too, that doing an abnormal thing deliberately suggests a prevenient commitment to those dogmatic truths on the part of those attending the EF. This skews the data.

    And yes, there are particular pitfalls w/in the OF, but there are also radical cliffs to fall off of in EF-land.

    As to your last point, why might the same not be said to/of Byzantine Catholics? Why can't they just assimilate into the adequate, saint-making Latin Rite? But then, that could also be spoken in reverse.

    The examples you give about desiring more to be present at a social after the NO Mass more than the TLM is understandable, given the family and some of their allies we know we're speaking about.


    Actually, that aversion was formed in another community entirely, before I met the people here.

    But that's the problem. As a Catholic, you shouldn't have to go searching over and over to find a Catholic church that's...Catholic. And whether it's the very curious allowances the rubrics permit, a liberal interpretation of the rubrics, or the casual make-it-up-as-you-go-along horizontal orientation that some priests employ in their parishes, with little to no correction from the ordinaries, is it any wonder that this has led to the thoughtful Catholic musician's desire to move to a more stable environment. Rubrics matter, and the new ones are sometimes loose enough and big enough to drive a truck through.


    This was a reference to a traditional community, of diocesan right, that arbitrarily sets the bounds of orthodoxy narrower than the Church. It works in reverse, too, as you state. It is sad, and harmful, in either extreme.

    Respectfully though, I don't believe for a second that one's "genuine devotion" to the Eucharist should permit one to do something that is inherently against the traditional practice of the Catholic Faith and which almost always leads to sacrilege, whether they know it or not.


    Like I said, it's a long conversation. We'd take very similar points of view about what ought to be going on, ultimately. That being said, my perspective is also informed by this:

    A thousand prudential judgments stand between the Sacrament on the altar, and its arrival in the mouth of the communicant. Moving, indeed, confecting the Sanctissimum at all exposes It to danger of being profaned. But, the authority of the Church is empowered to make those prudential judgments, allowing Its confection and motion for the pastoral care of the faithful entrusted to it. To follow specified norms on those matters is moral for the one following. The responsibility and guilt for a genuinely imprudent decision rests with the permitting authority, not with the docile faithful formed by them.
  • My difficulty with sheer ritual indifference as a benchmark of piety, is that the Church has never expected this of her faithful. Hence the particular churches and local uses. Arguably, her handling, progressively more generous, of those still attached to the EF is a stance in continuity with that overall trend. As with the Eastern Rites, at times that tolerance has been walked back unjustly.

    My issue with this is that the rituals of the Church used to more fervently orient towards the living God and not as horizontally as the current one does, let alone how it is most-commonly practiced.

    I meant only to address the idea you seemed to set forth, that the choice should be obvious, if one simply does a side-by-side, proposition for proposition comparison between the two forms. Other factors are at work in the communication of concept to communicant. Consider the teacher who speaks fewer things simply and directly, vs. one who speaks in an elevated way about any number of topics. Sometimes, students will learn more from the first teacher, and almost nothing from the second. A different kind of student will pick up everything the other puts down, which may be more. Whom should the principal hire?

    I take significant issue with this, again, with respect. I'll take the form that speaks of grace, the horrors of sin, redemption, Heaven, Hell, mercy, purgatory. I'll take the form that bids her ministers to bow their heads at the name of Jesus, the ones who kneel at the mention of His incarnation, the one that bids her priests to keep the fingers who touched the Sacred Host from being used for any other purposes until the end of Holy Communion, the one who took such care that each feast, each season, each office calls for different variations of even the same mode. I'll take the form that proclaims the timeless story of God's unrequited love for man in the Last Gospel, and our need to be protected from the Devil's snares in the Leonite prayers. I'll take the form that sees sacrilege as sacrilege and would never permit "pastoral reasons" to trump that. I'll take the vast sacred music deposit in the traditional form over the relative pittance that has emerged in this post-concilliar period any day.

    Knowing these are just SOME of the differences in the forms, I just can't understand how a Catholic could see the two as merely interchangeable expressions. If we know Jesus is God, why NOT bow at His Name? Why wouldn't we protect the fragments of the consecrated Hosts from being profaned? Why not read the love story between God and man? Why should I stare at Father in the face - he's not praying to me...is he? Why shouldn't I kneel to receive Him?
    And on and on and on...

    And yes, there are particular pitfalls w/in the OF, but there are also radical cliffs to fall off of in EF-land.

    In pride, arrogance, judgementalism, Pharasteicalism, yes. Here's how I see it:
    1.) Doing right things with the right reasoning - HOLINESS
    2.) Doing right things with the wrong reasoning - PRIDE, ARROGANCE, SHOWINESS, etc...
    3.) Doing wrong things for the right reasoning - MISGUIDED, capable of showing love but still potentially causing harm for others
    4.) Doing wrong things for the wrong reasoning - BITTERNESS, ANGRY

    Obviously I reject number four AND number two. My own personal go-to Scripture quote for a long time has been from the prophet Nehemiah: The JOY of the Lord is my STRENGTH. Reveling in a spirit of "isn't it great how we have this and how they don't" is not one of joy and not one of good will or charity. To have been given a treasure is an invitation to call others to it, too. This allows us to share the joy and peace of Christ with others.

    I also reject number three. In many, many cases folks here have no idea. I think of my mom. She doesn't know this stuff. Or the EMHC you cite who does her job because she really thinks she is doing good, or she is trying to be devout. Praise God for her desire! But that desire needs to be trained and pointed towards something truly good. Her devotion is misplaced because if her devotion were directed rightly, she would not participate in something that actually does damage - the sacrilegious profaning of the Body of Christ.

    And isn't this sort of a modernist way of thinking about Christianity? It gets to the heart of my experience in many NO churches. The Mass might have been mostly celebrated with a certain kind of decorum, but then, immediately afterwards, people start talking, sitting on the backs of pews, kids allowed to chase each-other up and down aisles (I have seen this numerous times in your parish.) This all comes from a 'God is present when we want Him/need Him to be and, when we stop considering/contemplating Him, He is not there' approach. After all, (the thought process might go on) there is no bad intention. But like it or not or even realize it or not, we can still desecrate through our ignorance and that ignorance needs to be amended, corrected, and alleviated through sound teaching, which doesn't just come from preaching about the Eucharist, but by the way we handle the Eucharist and all the little things I mentioned before. And that is something that is most vividly missing in the NO.

    To follow specified norms on those matters is moral for the one following. The responsibility and guilt for a genuinely imprudent decision rests with the permitting authority, not with the docile faithful formed by them.

    Evangelizing is getting people to become formed in the Truth! Should we not preach the Gospel to others, because as of now, they are ignorant of it? If they are ignorant of it, they are not morally responsible. But once they know it, they must make the moral choice to follow it, or become morally liable. It's like that, to some degree, in this case. If preaching the Gospel should be done, even if it opens one to having to make moral assertions about the truth, then we should do it because our Lord called us to do it in the Great Commission.

    This is going to seem like a really weird example, but imagine that there is someone responsible for torturing a recently kidnapped police chief named Steve. The chief had failed to uphold a speed limit on a local street when one day the kidnapper's son got hit by an unwieldy car and died. The kidnapper has made his stipulation clear to the chief's deputy- for every mile per hour the cars go over the speed limit on 1st Ave in town, Steve will turn the rack one crank. Certainly the kidnapper is guilty of this terrible crime, but the deputy's lack of sharing the contents of the message will result in the evil continuing, causing great harm to the kidnapped. The people deserve to know the consequences of their actions; after all, a great majority of them would care, as they don't want to be complicit in something terrible.

    To this I recall the words of Pope St. Pius X in his early 20th century Motu Proprio Tre La Sollicitudini, when he wrote: "And it is vain to hope that the blessing of heaven will descend abundantly upon us, when our homage to the Most High, instead of ascending in the odor of sweetness, puts into the hand of the Lord the scourges wherewith of old the Divine Redeemer drove the unworthy profaners from the Temple."
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,053
    I feel no need to choose between OF and EF, or between vernacular and Latin, though I might, if the option were available, choose 1967 in the vernacular. We should not need to reject any authorised form, properly celebrated, to justify our preference. So just to take the easiest instance, bowing -
    I'll take the form that bids her ministers to bow their heads at the name of Jesus,
    That is not a criterion that distinguishes OF and EF, the GIRM includes 81 instances of the word bow/bows/bowing. The general prescription is (my emphases) -
    275. A bow signifies reverence and honor shown to the persons themselves or to the signs that represent them. There are two kinds of bow: a bow of the head and a bow of the body.
    a) A bow of the head is made when the three Divine Persons are named together and at the names of Jesus, of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of the Saint in whose honor Mass is being celebrated.
    b) A bow of the body, that is to say, a profound bow, is made to the altar; during the prayers Munda cor meum (Cleanse my heart) and In spiritu humilitatis (With humble spirit); in the Creed at the words et incarnatus est (and by the Holy Spirit . . . and became man); in the Roman Canon at the Supplices te rogamus (In humble prayer we ask you, almighty God). The same kind of bow is made by the Deacon when he asks for a blessing before the proclamation of the Gospel. In addition, the Priest bows slightly as he pronounces the words of the Lord at the Consecration

    There is a difference in the number of such gestures, but that is because the multiplicity of repetitions of gestures of blessing and reverence in the OF EF often lead to poor execution. I have already cited above "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?"
    I grant that most celebrations of the EF may be more devout, but that also distinguishes current the EF from the TLM of my youth in the 1950s.
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 4,938
    "bow/bows/bowing" ... Oh!!!!! ... not arco (as opposed to pizzicato), or fancy ribbon decorations on gift packages, or branches from trees.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,927
    In truth, the OF (ordinary form of the Mass) is really the TLM. The NO is a fabrication (see quote by Pope Benedict XVI)
  • JesJes
    Posts: 570
    Some would say "lipstick on the pig" others would say "pathway in the right direction but finding a stop along the way" and others would say "how it should have been."

    I'm in the middle camp. It's going in a good direction.
  • a_f_hawkins:
    You found the rubric that mentions bowing at the name of Jesus in the OF. Could the priests be informed to follow this? 99.5% of all Catholic priests (and bishops) do NOT do this.

    We should not need to reject any authorised form, properly celebrated, to justify our preference.
    Unless that form by itself, or the common, allowed celebration of it, cheapens the Faith.

    There is a difference in the number of such gestures, but that is because the multiplicity of repetitions of gestures of blessing and reverence in the OF EF often lead to poor execution. I have already cited above "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?"
    This is very, very sloppy, in my opinion. Certainly one can pray a whole rosary devoutly and one could pray one Hail Mary very distractedly. It all points to the intention, the heart and mind's desire to focus. Should I stop giving my wife and kids kisses and hugs and telling them "I love you" because it would just be "mechanical from habit, sloppy from routine, and half-hearted from apathy?

    Besides, this is missing the two-fold point of why we pray liturgically. First, we seek to give glory to God. If we desire to glorify God, even when we're tired, weak, and struggling to focus, we glorify Him. And even we are this way, the externals can help lead others properly. I was so moved when, at my first TLM, the name 'Jesus' was said at the sermon and instantly a whole sanctuary full of men and boys turned towards the altar and bowed their heads at the name of Jesus. That was the moment I was won over. Was Father "feeling the love" at that moment for what he was doing? I don't know, but you couldn't tell. The faith he was professing was bigger than his mood, one of many failures of having Mass vs populo.

  • Two examples of the ridiculous minimization that did nothing for anyone - neither God nor man:
    TLM (from 'Offertory' rubric #10)
    Incensing at Offertory: And the Celebrant places incense in the Thurible, saying, as in the Order of Mass:
    Per intercessionem beati Michaelis Archangeli, stantis a dextris altaris incensi, et omnium electorum suorum, incensum istud dignetur Dominus bene dicere, et in odorem suavitatis accipere. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.
    Then, accepting the Thurible from the hand of the Deacon, making then no reverence to the Cross, the Celebrant incenses the gifts, thrice swinging the Thurible over the Chalice and Host together in the sign of the cross, and thrice around the Chalice and Host, that is, twice from right to left, and once from left to right (the Deacon, meanwhile, holding the foot of the Chalice with his right hand), dis­pensing the words in the incensations in this way:

    In the first incensation:

    Incensum istud
    In the second:

    a te benedictum
    In the third:

    ascendat ad te, Domine
    In the fourth:

    et descendat super nos
    In the fifth and sixth:

    misericordia tua.
    Then, having paid it reverence, he incenses the Cross and the Altar, as described below, assisted by the Deacon, and saying meanwhile:
    Dirigatur, Domine, oratio mea sicut incensum in conspectu tuo: elevatio manuum mearum sacrificium vespertinum. Pone, Domine, custodiam ori meo, et ostium circumstantiae labiis meis: ut non declinet cor meum in verba malitiae, ad excusandas excusationes in peccatis.

    And when he incenses the Cross, the Dea­con removes the Chalice to the Epistle side, and the Cross having been incensed, replaces it. When he returns the Thurible to the Dea­con, the Celebrant says:
    Accendat in nobis Dominus ignem sui amoris, et flammam aeterne caritatis. Amen.

    NO from GIRM 144
    144. If incense is being used, the Priest then puts some in the thurible, blesses it without saying anything, and incenses the offerings, the cross, and the altar. While standing at the side of the altar, a minister incenses the Priest and then the people.

    CONSECRATION AND HANDLING OF THE HOST
    TLM
    When he finishes the above-mentioned words, with his elbows placed upon the Altar, stand­ing with his head inclined, he pronounces dis­tinctly, reverently, and secretly the words of consecration over the Host, and at the same time, over all, if more are to be consecrated, and holding his own Host with his thumbs and index fingers, he says:

    HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM.

    When this has been said, the Celebrant, holding the Host between his afore-mentioned thumbs and index fingers upon the Altar, with the remaining fingers of his hands extended, and at the same time joined (and with the Hosts, if more have been consecrated, in the place in which they were placed at the begin­ning of the Mass, upon the Corporal or in another Chalice), genuflecting, he adores It. Then he arises, and as much as he can comfor­tably do, elevates the Host in the air, and directing his eyes toward It (which is also done during the elevation of the Chalice), shows It reverently to the people, for their adoration. And soon he reverently replaces It upon the Corporal with his right hand only, in the same place from which he raised It, and without interruption. He does not disjoin his thumbs and index fingers up to the ablution of the fingers after the Communion, except when he must touch or handle the consecrated Host.

    NO
    150. A little before the Consecration, if appropriate, a minister rings a small bell as a signal to the faithful. The minister also rings the small bell at each elevation by the Priest, according to local custom.

    If incense is being used, when the host and the chalice are shown to the people after the Consecration, a minister incenses them.

    151. After the Consecration when the Priest has said, The mystery of faith, the people pronounce the acclamation, using one of the prescribed formulas.

    At the end of the Eucharistic Prayer, the Priest takes the paten with the host and the chalice and elevates them both while pronouncing alone the doxology Through him. At the end the people acclaim, Amen. After this, the Priest places the paten and the chalice on the corporal.

    152. After the Eucharistic Prayer is concluded, the Priest, with hands joined, says alone the introduction to the Lord’s Prayer, and then with hands extended, he pronounces the prayer together with the people.

    153. After the Lord’s Prayer is concluded, the Priest, with hands extended, says alone the embolism Libera nos (Deliver us, Lord). At the end, the people acclaim, For the kingdom.

    (I copied more than the appropriate section to show that I didn't skip anything. So...where did all the content go...? Where's the care, the thoughfulness? Did we just decide, in all Enlightement-era glory, that we really didn't need to be so careful anymore?
  • fcbfcb
    Posts: 306
    If you look back at n. 149 you'll see that it says "The priest continues the Eucharistic Prayer in accordance with the rubrics that are set both in each of the prayers." If you look in the Missal you wills see that, in the Roman canon for example, the priest is to raise his eyes at "et elevatis oculis in caelum", to bow slightly at "accipite et manudate", to show the host to the people after the consecration and then "genufelxus adorat" (and likewise with the chalice), bow at "supplices te rogamus," and strike his breast at "Nobis quoque peccatoribus." It is certainly simpler than the EF (and that by design), but certain precise actions are prescribed, you just have to know where to look for them.
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 1,078
    I can see the priest saying a Latin OF Mass where there was a diverse congregation, but not enough of any particular minor (for the area) language to warrant a separate Mass (e.g. you have a parish in a French speaking country where there are members who only speak Congolese, Cantonese, and Polish, and only a few French speakers and not enough priests to have separate Masses in each language).
  • ... to show the host to the people after the consecration and then "genufelxus adorat" (and likewise with the chalice) ...

    One wonders at the reason for many changes - not least of which are the reverences accompanying the consecration of both species.

    In the EF, the order of celebrant's actions following each consecration is genuflection, elevation, genuflection. This is perhaps one of the clearest examples of Lex orandi, lex credendi... the celebrant genuflects first because the transubstantiation is effected by the words of consecration in conjunction with the priestly character conferred by ordination. He elevates so that the people may adore. He genuflects again to demonstrate profound reverence for the presence of God. Some might view two genuflections to be superfluous, but this (as indeed or all of the actions associated with the Mass) is merely the complete expression of our Faith as expressed in liturgical action.

    In the OF, the order is elevation, genuflection as mentioned above.

    The liturgical commission that designed the Novus Ordo had, in addition to catholic priests, six Protestant ministers - in a bid for "ecumenism". I put this term in quotes because unlike the understanding of centuries of Catholic theology - where ecumenism meant sharing the Catholic Faith with unbelievers, this meaning involves changing Catholic doctrines to fit with other religious viewpoints.

    Protestants don't typically believe in transubstantiation. Various Protestant denominations embrace impanation or transignification or other explanations of what happens during their equivalent of the Consecration. Protestants often believe that what takes place does so, not because of the words of the minister or through his action alone, but rather, by the belief of the people. It isn't far-fetched to imagine that the change in the Mass was to accommodate that belief - in the spirit of "ecumenism" - by implying through liturgical action that it is the belief of the assembly that results in whatever change takes place to the species (impanation, transignification, transubstantiation according to your viewpoint).

    This isn't an argument that this is necessarily so - just that it is a reasonable question around one of the many troubling things regarding the new rite.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw JacobFlaherty
  • It is certainly simpler than the EF (and that by design), but certain precise actions are prescribed, you just have to know where to look for them.

    I never assumed that there were no rubrics. I served Mass growing up and knew what the Missal said. It is interesting when you go into the GIRM and find phrases that pop up with great frequency - phrases like: if appropriate.

    In chapter IV: 'The Different Forms of Celebrating Mass', the phrase pops up in paragraphs 115, 118 b and 118 c, 123, 128, 130, 136, 138 (3x), 142, 150, 154, 175, 181, 189, 190, 198, 222 c, 233 c, 249, 252, 266, 283

    In the GIRM it allows at funerals for the priest to go and give the Sign of Peace to the family of the deceased on occasion (never mind that this seems to happen way more than "on occasion." I was just wondering, what happens to the particles that are on the priest's fingers from Consecration at that point. Since the rubric to keep the fingers together no longer applies, it seems reasonable to assume that the greeting (or the turning on and off of the cordless microphone, etc... employs those fingers. Hmmmm...
    Thanked by 1Incardination
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,053
    Where's the care, the thoughfulness?
    In the case of incense, in GIRM 276 & 277.
    what happens to the particles that are on the priest's fingers from Consecration
    see GIRM 278
    Thanked by 1Liam
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,053
    JacobFlaherty, I was already 25 by the opening of VII, so I saw plenty of poor execution in the TLM. The rubrics did not achieve what Trent had called for*, because while priests said the prayers of the Mass, they did not always pray the Mass. If your goal was to send the parishoners away happy that they had satisfied the Sunday obligation with the least possible effort, with a less than twenty minute Mass, then you probably did not "waste" much time ensuring that the words which could not be heard were actually carefully said. With one priest, I found that I could not even read the first word of each line of the Canon (just visually read the word, not articulate it) in the time it took him to finish it. I have no reason to suppose that a return to the TLM would not lead to a return to silently gabbled Masses.
    * particularly Session XXII Ch 6 and Ch 8. http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch22.htm
    Thanked by 2toddevoss CharlesW
  • see GIRM 278

    278. Whenever a fragment of the host adheres to his fingers, especially after the fraction or after the Communion of the faithful, the Priest should wipe his fingers over the paten or, if necessary, wash them. Likewise, he should also gather any fragments that may have fallen outside the paten.


    Yes, this addresses how to purify. Jacob's point (I believe) is that this is only prescribed where the fragment is visible. The whole point of keeping the consecrating fingers together is that every particle is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. It isn't conceivable that handling hosts, especially breaking them and smoothing the edge (fairly common) doesn't leave some residual particles on the fingers.

    Like the diminished outward signs of veneration throughout, this is another representation that leads one to question what, precisely, is the belief behind the action? Are we truly so casual with our God? So cavalier in our signs of respect toward Him? On another post, someone mentioned the celebrant using his phone post Communion to look up the football scores and then to announce them to the congregation during the Mass... something that illustrates the degree of "casual" that is inherent.

    You've mentioned above that - in your own experience - the celebration of the EF tends to be more reverent. Isn't it precisely because these outward manifestations are incorporated into the Liturgy? Certainly, there were and are exceptions - times when the EF is not reverent... although in my experience, when it occurs, it isn't usually that obvious.

    I think a legitimate question might be - why are irreverent EF Masses and reverent OF Masses each the exception in their respective spheres? I don't mean this disrespectfully. There are OF Masses that certainly ARE edifying and reverent. But most that I've attended - in various locations - and most that I've heard described are at most, casual - not imbued with reverence.

    Do we really imagine that this has no connection with the nature of liturgical actions?
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,053
    why are irreverent EF Masses and reverent OF Masses each the exception in their respective spheres?
    I do not experience reverent OF Masses as exceptional though I agree there are far too many which are lacking. I suggest that is because currently EF Masses are preponderently celebrated by priests who take worship seriously. Unfortunately not all priests do take worship seriously, and that was also true 70 years ago. In those days the awareness of sin was much greater, and particularly of the peril to one's soul of a failure to abide by the rules. That kept the churches fuller, and lead to mechanical performances of Low Mass.
    Thanked by 1NihilNominis
  • How many people make up a quorum for a new vernacular Mass?
  • AF, it is quite possible we have different understandings of "reverent" and "casual", and likely "mechanical" and "superfluous" as well. :)
  • I do not experience reverent OF Masses as exceptional though I agree there are far too many which are lacking. I suggest that is because currently EF Masses are preponderently celebrated by priests who take worship seriously. Unfortunately not all priests do take worship seriously, and that was also true 70 years ago. In those days the awareness of sin was much greater, and particularly of the peril to one's soul of a failure to abide by the rules. That kept the churches fuller, and lead to mechanical performances of Low Mass.


    I agree with all of the above except the first sentence. Reverent OF Masses in my experience are exceptional - but of course that is somewhat subjective.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,053
    GCZ Canon 906 applies to all forms of the Roman Rite. For Fr Z's opinion see here. For OF, GIRM 252-272 apply as adapted in GIRM 254 .
    [ADDED] - the short answer is, the celebrant - with all the hosts of heaven.
  • GCZ

    Is that me?

    You've defined a coetus, which is valuable, but not really what I meant.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,053
    Chris G-Z, Apologies - problems with aged fingers, hampered by a dislocation a month ago.
    A quorum is a legalistic concept, useful for a deliberative assembly, but the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not a deliberative assembly. AFAIK Christians did not incorporate the minyan concept of the synagogue into our worship. The Church of England used to require the celebrant to be sure of at least three people receiving Communion, before starting the service (failing which there is a harangue/admonishment/exhortation provided by the Prayer Book). Clearly they did not derive that from Catholic practice. I do recall, at some time between 1948 and 1954‡, an instruction forbidding missae solitariae causing disruption* at the monastery in whose parish I lived, possibly this was among the first fruits of the involvement of Fr. A. Bugnini, appointed Secretary of the Commissio Piana in 1948.
    * Mainly to the breakfast schedule of brother sacristan.
    ‡ on second thoughts, it may have been later, I continued to serve Mass there until 1963.
  • Hawkins,

    You're correct that a quorum is the idea I had in mind, with all its legalistic technicalities. To celebrate Mass at all takes no congregation. To celebrate Mass in Latin takes only the required books and a priest. To request the traditional form used to require a coetus, but doesn't anymore, since priests and bishops are exhorted to erect Latin Mass communities even when there isn't an organized coetus.

    To celebrate Mass in the vernacular, on the other hand requires that the Mass be translated into whatever vernacular is desired, and then to find laymen to read the readings, the intentions and the announcements, and to find enough people to serve as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and ministers of music, who must program music for the celebrating community.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,053
    And to get the translation approved.
    You missed out one significant role, an organist. Like the others, not required by the rubrics, but they do add tone to the proceedings.
  • ...but they do add tone....
    Um... Pun intended, or no?
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Just an example: Midnight Mass last night in a foreign country. Me, praying against temptations of frustration because I don't the Mass in this language, and can't say or sing anything along with the congregation (about a third are visiting foreigners).

    And then, for no apparent reason, the celebrating bishop switches to Latin for the Our Father, and it is the standard chanted version, and I am so happy to have a moment of familiarity on Christmas (which can be a rather nostalgic holiday, even a bit melancholy). It was such a rush of joy. And to my surprise many people around me sang along.
    Thanked by 2madorganist chonak
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,053
    1/ left intentionally from a longer draft
    -
    2/ Again I can refer to GIRM, §41 and its footnote
    41. ... Since the faithful from different countries come together ever more frequently, it is desirable that they know how to sing together at least some parts of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin, especially the Profession of Faith and the Lord’s Prayer, according to the simpler settings.*
    * Cf. Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 54; Sacred Congregation of Rites, Instruction, Inter Oecumenici, 26 September 1964, no. 59: Acta Apostolicae Sedis 56 (1964), p. 891; Instruction, Musicam sacram, 5 March 1967, no. 47: Acta Apostolicae Sedis 59 (1967), p. 314.



  • And then, for no apparent reason, the celebrating bishop switches to Latin for the Our Father, and it is the standard chanted version, and I am so happy to have a moment of familiarity on Christmas (which can be a rather nostalgic holiday, even a bit melancholy). It was such a rush of joy. And to my surprise many people around me sang along.
    One of my favorite novus ordo memories is a Sunday evening Mass at St. Mark's, Venice, which was in Italian, except the Pater noster, which was in Latin - recited, not sung, if memory serves. At the sign of peace, the guy next to me, who surely heard me saying the Pater noster after not having opened my mouth the rest of the Mass, and not knowing my nationality or native language, shook my hand and said "Pax tecum."
  • ...favorite novus ordo memories...
    I'm sure the liturgy at St Mark's doesn't hold a candle to what it was when Gabrieli was there.
  • 'at the sign of the peace...'

    The woman in front of me cheerfully offered 'Merry Christmas!!' in English instead.
    Thanked by 1madorganist
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,053
    'at the sign of the peace...'
    - shook my hand and said "Pax tecum."
    - cheerfully offered 'Merry Christmas!!'

    I admit to conflicting feelings about this, On the one hand I have no problem with either greeting, as a peace greeting. And I have no problem with the restoration of the medieval inclusion of the faithful. My concern, perhaps a reflection of the simple clarity sought by the reformers in the Consilium, is that it distracts from the individuals focus on the Sacrifice and the eating of the sacrificial victim. I regret that the request by HH BXVI did not lead CDWDS to accept the possibility of moving the pax. I understand that there is sound theological sense in the Roman placement, adopted in very early times. But no other rite places it here, not even the Ambrosian and Mozarabic rites. And Sarum managed to include the pax twice in the Mass, the other being in the penitential rite, which seems logical.
    Thanked by 1toddevoss
  • I mostly find it a) interrupts my personal prayer just before Communion and the buildup of a sense of reverence and awe in that part of the Mass and b) always overlaps the Agnus Dei. Especially the latter is awkward.

  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,674

    I have found the greatest advantage to playing the organ is that I can hide behind the console during the peace greeting. All the out-stretched hands can't reach me.


    Thanked by 1CHGiffen