Back to Reform of the Reform
-
I don't think anyone is arguing that the Ordinary Form is perfect. It isn't. Nothing humans create is perfect. What I do hear from the advocates of the Extraordinary Form is that it is perfect and doesn't need changing. It isn't and it does. In fact what I hear from the advocates of the Extraordinary Form is that the version that is approved for use (the 1962 Missal) is deficient and that they want to go back to an earlier version. One with even more bells and whistles.
Yes, the English translation of the Ordinary Form went back to 'through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault', but that was already in the typical edition, the English translation was just brought into line with it.
What we got after Vatican II may not be perfect, but it is what the Church wants us to do. More than likely, in the future we will see changes to it to correct mistakes.
-
If ever a day comes when saner heads prevail and Pope Francis ambles off the stage, perhaps all of this can be looked at more reasonably and carefully. Vatican II in its interminable and sometimes pointless ramblings, did call for liturgical reform. It would be wonderful if people actually qualified to make those reforms could try the reform process again and produce a better product.
-
My diocese has surpassed peak 1962 Missal popularity and it's on the wane. The single personal FSSP parish in the diocese has had no membership growth in five years (hovering at a little more than 30), and a few of those families drive more than sixty miles each way from a neighboring diocese to attend the Mass. At the territorial parishes where it is celebrated, it has not been started because of demand from parishioners; it has been because the pastor decided to implement it on his own once a week or once a month, and it gets a small number of regulars, many of whom would go to daily Novus Ordo Mass anyway. Tellingly, no territorial parish is offering Mass using the 1962 Missal every Sunday nor on any Sundays. If there were a surge of demand for it or if it really attracted the young, they would be offering it on Sundays. This is mostly priests following their personal interest on select weekdays.
Bishops and pastors would get far more mileage if they concentrated on improving the quality of Novus Ordo Masses, which is the aim of RotR. -
Below is what is available in the archdiocese. I don't believe there are any SSPX in that diocese (they are mostly in the south). I did not check to see if there are independent chapels.
Also, in the actual interview, he said five or six. I just listened to it yesterday. He evidently forgot a couple. You number is even lower. While eight is still not a lot, it's significantly higher than four. Best to get numbers straight if you can, especially if you are using them to make a point of how rare something is.
• Star of the Sea Church, San Francisco
• St. Mary's Cathedral, in the Shrine of our Lady of Guadalupe, San Francisco
•Mater Dolorosa Church, South San Francisco
• Church of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Belmont
• St. Catherine of Siena Church, Burlingame
• Corpus Christi Monastery, Menlo Park
• St. Francis of Assisi Church, East Palo Alto
•Church of the Nativity, Menlo ParkThanked by 1tomjaw -
TCJ: just a note for your list, I see that the SSPX has Our Lady of Perpetual help (as well as a retreat house) at Los Gatos, CA
from Belmont, 30 mi
from Burlingame, 35 mi
from Menlo, 24 miThanked by 1tomjaw -
We should not think of the TLM as just one thing. On this forum obviously solemn musical liturgy is a focus, but some PIPs are looking for the low mutter of a missa lecta. Similarly a venue on the list may be daily and twice on Sundays, or it may be First Fridays only.Thanked by 1tomjaw
-
The TLM folks are a distinct minority in most places. Yet, they think they will take over the world. Not much realistic thinking in that group. The majority of Catholics don't even want the TLM. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it, it just conveys the attitude on the part of TLM participants that we have it, therefore it must be better than what you have. See a problem here? I do.
So on the one hand, TLMers are an insignificant sliver of Catholics; in the other, they are some sort of existential threat to . . . what exactly?
The way you describe them they are a bunch of quaint cranks, and delusional ones at that - as if classic cars are going to supplant SUVs, or vinyl will take over streaming services. Some who go to the NO think their mass is better (naturally, or else they wouldn't go to it). Others seem to think it's better because of legislative fiat.
Sorry, I just don't lose any sleep over these scenarios. -
they think they will take over the world. Not much realistic thinking in that group
From a merely human perspective,
A Jewish carpenter who became an itinerant rabbi called twelve men (one of whom betrayed him, and then hanged himself) and told them to "teach them everything I have commanded you, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"
These, too, were an insignificant sliver who set out to conquer the world. As Francis [Koerber, not Bergoglio] likes to point out, the Church buries her undertakers. -
Charles, it was quite obvious that CGZ was not comparing any person to our Lord, but stating that if it is the will of God, that which we deem impossible can happen.
-
I debated whether to post this article link here or in the TC thread. I think it's better here because it's about the failure of the Church to celebrate the NO Mass authentically, leaving many Catholics with a feeling of emptiness about the liturgy. RotR is supposed to be about correcting that. Link and then some excerpts:
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2021/07/24/opinion-the-real-void/According to DiNoia’s interpretation of the Pope’s letter, the primary reason the Catholic faithful attend the Extraordinary Form is the result of abuse. In other words, the elephant in the room being overlooked in this discussion is that the common liturgical expression of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite is perhaps the most significant cause for priests and laity turning to more ancient liturgical rites.Most Catholics have never been formerly trained in liturgy. Thus, the only referent for liturgy that they can rely upon is their experience of the Mass itself. A more likely hypothesis for why Catholics would consider attending that Traditional Latin Mass seems to be that the common experience of the Ordinary Form leaves a real existential void within. Perhaps they cannot articulate the problem clearly, but they do wonder if “something is missing.” They are searching for something within the liturgy that they are not finding.The common liturgical practices of the Ordinary Form have put Catholics into a rather unsettling position. We have become habituated to a set of practices which too often tend in a direction that undermines the very nature of the liturgical action itself. If this hypothesis is correct, then this is where we must begin.
As I have stated at least a few times, genuine liturgical renewal -- getting Vatican II and the Novus Ordo right -- has to be a top priority for bishops and pastors. -
Mark,
While it is true that there are refugees from the Missal of Paul VI, this is a reason why people explore the question of the traditional Mass in the first place, it doesn't explain why they stay.
People recognize fundamental differences between the two forms, not in the abuses of the Missal of Paul VI, but in its (relatively) proper, orderly celebration, when compared to the relatively orderly and proper celebration of the venerable rite. -
When I was taught about liturgy, in the 1950s, we started from a clear distinction between the first part, the Mass of the Catechumens, and the second part, the Mass of the Faithful. I am beginning to see the loss of understanding this as a cause of liturgical wars.
Catechumens are under instruction, the first part of the Mass has an underlying didactic purpose. The readings are instructive, as the Council of Tent emphasised, and preferably should† be further opened up in a homily. Lest the hungry sheep look up and are not fed. Or alternatively read in the vernacular, or both.
†[ADDED]" the holy synod charges pastors, and all those who have the cure of souls ..."
The Mass of the Faithful is, or should be, quite different - it is supposed to bring the assembly to the threshold of eternity and stand us before The Holy Sacrifice.
-
Hawkins,
Instructive is not the same as didactic. -
didactic: intended to teach, particularly in having moral instruction as an ulterior motive.
Thanked by 1CHGiffen -
"Didactic", is perhaps the sermon which is gone, replaced by a "homily." Two very different things. The homily is most often an exposition on the reading(s), which are not often 'moral' stories.
"Instructive" is not the same. One can be instructed by example, or through indirect discourse--which is what went on in the UA. -
Hawkins,
Of course the liturgy has the capacity to teach, in itself, and of course there is the sermon, in which instruction can be direct. Nevertheless, when the Mass is in the vernacular, and the non-sacral vernacular at that, the expectation is instructional or entertaining, not formative.Thanked by 1tomjaw -
I suggest anybody interested could look up what the Council of Trent said in Session 22, chapter 8 - On not celebrating the Mass every where in the vulgar tongue; the mysteries of the Mass to be explained to the people. The Council deliberately coupled these together.
Perhaps they would like to suggest an interpretation of "frequently, during the celebration of mass, expound". And propose rubrics which would ensure that in the EF this solemn charge to pastors would be carried out.
-
CGZ - that is one of the reasons some of us want a Reform of the Reform.
-
CGZ - that is one of the reasons some of us want a Reform of the Reform.
Good luck. The current administration in Rome seems downright hostile to anything of the sort such as any reform. -
Good luck. The current administration in Rome seems downright hostile to anything of the sort such as any reform.
I've started to strongly suspect that the things advocated for by those interested in ROTR (and also traditionalists) could be generically termed "Romanism". I think many clerics equate "Romanism" with clericalism.Thanked by 1CharlesW -
Hawkins,
What would the reform you desire accomplish? --that is, how is the end product different from your starting point?Thanked by 1tomjaw -
CGZ - What it would seek to accomplish is a greater awareness of the Mass as The Holy Sacrifice. But to achieve that without destroying the sense of engagement which was generally lacking in my youth.
Bad liturgy is corrosive, it destroys faith. Good liturgy builds faith, but not by watching it or reading about it, it requires participatio actuosa, "so that the law of praying establishes the law of believing". A prayer which is incomprehensible does not affect belief. -
Okay - here are my thoughts on of RoTR. The long-term goal would be to ultimately "reform" it universally - and informing that reform with an eye to what we have gained and what we have lost in the celebration of the OF (excessively optionality would be the first item on my agenda if I were Pope!). But lets put that aside, as I don't see that happening in my lifetime at this point (I am no spring chicken) and there is likely much disagreement over the details.
So for the short term, I suggest the following as a thought experiment - a concrete one.
I can advocate in my diocese for things to promote more catholicity (universality) in how the Liturgy is celebrated - if only for a period as a pious matter as well as a learning matter. For example, maybe "A Year of Loving to Learn Tradition in the Ordinary Form". A Bishop (a brave one) might say hey folks just for one year as a matter of Catholic education and also as a pious exercise lets do the following (the Bishop is speaking):
1. Exclusive use of the Roman Canon- just for a year folks. And everyone make the effort to read the wonderful little book "The Great Prayer"
2. Lets take one of Paul VI's last wishes seriously. He came to regret the complete disappearance of Latin from his NO in practice and especially chants he felt all the faithful should be familiar with. So the Holy See in the mid seventies put out a little booklet (Jubiliate Deo) of wonderfully selected simple and traditional chants . Let's at least have the people learn those simple Latin chants and use them all year this year for the Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus and the Agnus Dei. Actually Archbishop Sample has done something along these lines in a couple dioceses.
3. Suitable Hymns are options in lieu of the more traditional antiphons, but have seemed to be the only option ever taken in most parishes. We'll take this one easy in terms of Latin except in our Cathedral with its professional choir. We'll have typical parish choirs/cantors with or without the people in chanting simple vernacular antiphons - i.e the propers. Archbishop Sample had similar push for this as well.
4. Again, just for a year - let's all try Ad Orientem. By the end of the year I am pretty sure many of you will be able to think of it as "we're all facing the same way - we're all praying to the Lord" rather than "he's turning his back to us." Many of you may decide you like it.
5. Just for a year, lets all receive on the tongue. You can go back to the throne of your hand for the rest of your life if you want. But lets try it and learn why some feel it promotes devotion to our Eucharistic Lord.
6. And, importantly, I would ask you do some "parish visiting" during this year in the diocese to see what it is like to visit another parish in the diocese and not experience it as a significantly different experience. To see the 'positive' of some universality. Just for a year. Who knows.
There could be more, perhaps some bishops would do less. I would love to see this. -
This old music director now has a pretty good idea of what "Reform of the Reform" should look like.
This morning I watched two masses from the fellows at St. John Cantius (not the first time I have done so, but the first time with the intent of really noticing things in light of the latest Motu Proprio). I watched the Ordinary Form in English from top to bottom. Everything but the readings sung very nicely and in tune by Father Joshua and the men singing the Proper and Ordinary chants, and the organist provided not only his own music at appropriate times, but sensitive and unobtrusive support for the chants where needed. Each and every aspect of ritual movement, prayer, use of the voice, gesture was in place and elegant, controlled and understated. Movement by all participants in the sanctuary is impeccable. Fr. Joshua delivered a sincere, caring homily. It was, to this observer, an almost ideal NO mass. I would have loved to hear a larger choir of SATB singing the chant, but that's just me. And the recessional hymn was the only place the congregation was able to sing a lusty old hymn, but that's the Canons' choice and it is fine; it works. Note, too, that all masses - OF and EF - are "ad orientem" because that's the way the church is laid out and no one put a free-standing altar therein. But guess what? It works perfectly well because everything the celebrant says or sings is miked.
And the singing of the Proper chants doesn't in any way overly prolong the ceremony. In fact, the Introit and Offertory do a fine job of correlating to the incensing, and the organist fills time well if the incensing takes longer than the chant. Thus each of the Sunday OF English masses done by the Cantius fellows are all "bells and smells" style of a high order.
Them I watched the recorded EF low mass with Fr. Schuster. None of what I am about to type is intended to reflect on the celebrant or anyone else. ... There is nothing there, externally, for the congregation. The EF mass is entirely inward. There is nothing for the congregation but internal prayer. There is no involvement (except for communion) and that involvement was a prime intent of V2 (and doubtless John 23's and Paul 6's beefs with the old mass). This mass negates it. (How I would have loved to have all EF celebrants miked so the people could follow the Mass closely and personally, though I know that is not rubrically tolerated.) In fact, as others more intelligent than I am have noted, it negates much of the precepts of V2, duh, because it was the only thing for 400 years before V2. I know that most who prefer the EF to the OF do so because of many factors, a couple of which I might observe are 1) there is no physical effort or work involved in attending and praying the EF low mass, except it's hard on the knees, and 2) the EF mass offers the worshipper to be able to be completely absorbed in inward prayer without having to say or sing a thing, so little outward emotional/intellectual effort is required.
The Cantius model shows us just how good the OF with chant and incense and the like can be. And the 4th Eucharistic Prayer - too seldom used - is a beautiful model of poetic prayer (Fr. Joshua used the 2nd today).
For this old and incurably ill former music director the Ordinary Form of the Mass - the way the priests of St. John Cantius do it - is "the Mass" and is the way it ought to be done everywhere. I am no longer an overly or overtly spiritual fellow, but I sensed the spirituality of their OF mass powerfully and peacefully.
But you know what? Gosh, just let those who prefer the Tridentine Mass have it. They're just missing out on all the cool aspects of participatory liturgy. Just like V2 intended. But if they're happy, let them be happy, they just mustn't tell people that their (EF) way is the only way and everyone else (OF) is wrong. About that, the Pope is rightly concerned. -
A prayer which is incomprehensible does not affect belief.
and yet, before the vernacular liturgy, people knew whether they were good Catholics or not, and could tell you why God made them, and understood that Mass was a re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary. In the time of the vernacular (and thus, theoretically, comprehensible) fewer people know what the Church teaches, think it matters what the Church teaches, feel the primacy of conscience.... and so on. Sure, some understanding of the prayer is necessary, but a PhD in linguistics and theology isn't necessary to be a good Catholic. For that matter, it's a PROTESTANT idea that reading the Bible gets people to heaven, and so the uneducated or illiterate can't get there. -
Actually, those things people knew were the result of good Catholic education in the schools. That doesn't exist in most places any more.
-
Them I watched the recorded EF low mass ...There is nothing there, externally, for the congregation. The EF mass is entirely inward. There is nothing for the congregation but internal prayer. There is no involvement (except for communion) and that involvement was a prime intent of V2 (and doubtless John 23's and Paul 6's beefs with the old mass). This mass negates it.
Excellent. The external participation is highly distracting to me and detracts from the experience of attending the holy sacrifice of the Mass. Negating is good.I know that most who prefer the EF to the OF do so because of many factors, a couple of which I might observe are 1) there is no physical effort or work involved in attending and praying the EF low mass, except it's hard on the knees, and 2)
There is no physical work involved with the OF. In fact, I think there's a whole lot less kneeling and more sitting. If you speak of physical exertion, the EF is more difficult.the EF mass offers the worshipper to be able to be completely absorbed in inward prayer without having to say or sing a thing, so little outward emotional/intellectual effort is required.
Intellectually speaking, meditation is considerably more difficult than speaking a few words on cue. In fact, many people speak without thinking (and it gets them in trouble). I would venture to say that following the crowd and speaking prepared responses out loud involves minimal intellectual effort for most people.
As far as emotional involvement? Emotions ground us to earth. I do not want an emotional involvement because it would keep my faith shallow. We should be able to traverse beyond that with a mature faith.Thanked by 1tomjaw -
UA requires no sitting or standing or kneeling from those hearing Mass
In fact, the UA doesn't regulate the laity at all, in the rubrics of Mass. It controls that which must be controlled, and leaves that which may vary the space to do so. What is even more, Pope Pius XII pointedly remarked that it would be pursuing the wrong course to require identical participation from everyone.Thanked by 1tomjaw -
While the UA doesn't regulate the laity, most people generally follow a certain set of postures at specific times during the Mass. As far as those postures go, they're more difficult (more kneeling) than at the OF.
I will grant that holding arms up and outstretched for prolonged periods of time as done in "charismatic" Masses is probably physically taxing.Thanked by 1tomjaw -
TCJ,
My knees are just about the only parts of my body which function according to manufacturer's specks, so, far from being difficult, kneeling is something I'm pleased to be able to do. -
In the 1920 & 1604 editions there was in the Rubricae generales
XVII — De Ordine genuflectendi, sedendi, et standi in Missa privata et sollemni
2 Circumstantes autem in Missis
privatis semper genua flectunt, etiam
Tempore Paschali, præterquam dum
legitur Evangelium. -
@a_f_hawkins I suspect that even there, circumstantes are clerics etc who are present eg in choir dress? Is there any other reason to suppose that it means the lay faithful?
-
@Andrew_Malton - yes, not rock hard, but when the distinction is neccessary at a requiem :Clerus circumstans
cantat sequens Responsorium:
Libera me Domine, de mortis ..
And
together with the fact that in the Sarum Missal the formula is "Orate fratres et sorores, ..."dicit: Oráte, fratres ...
Minister, seu circumstantes respondent:
sorores.jpg304 x 86 - 9KThanked by 1Salieri -
If "circumstantes" only refers to clergy, then the Roman Canon makes no sense:
"Memento, Domine, famulorum famularumque tuarum N. et N. et omnium curcumstantium," &c.Thanked by 1a_f_hawkins -
There are some on this forum who opine that the RotR is dead. I respectfully disagree. I think it has just begun, based on the trends I see among my fellow millennials. Continue to plant the seeds my friends, even if the fruit is not harvested for 10 to 20 years.
-
I fear many see it as a zero-sum game, if RotR is successful then TLM will wither. I see the Church as needing Benedictines and Franciscans and Jesuits and... and . But people are all different and pass through different stages of spiritual growth. Now they may prefer a beautifully sung Mass, but develop to seek out the solitude with God of a low Mass in Latin, and at another time raise their own very ordinary voices. Through all this I/we need to be vigilant and avoid being distracted from my/our objective which is to raise my/our mind/s and heart/s to God.
-
But do we really need Jesuits?
Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.
Categories
- All Discussions21,508
- General Music Discussion7,776
- Job Openings1,365
- Management of Music Programs838
- Choral Matters523
- Church Documents and Rubrics513
- CMAA Notes293
- Events665
- For Newcomers: Read First24
- Sacred Polyphony531
- Hymnody840
- Gregorian Chant: General2,614
- ↳ Graduale Romanum and Liber Usualis357
- ↳ Graduale Simplex55
- ↳ Semiology58
- Vernacular Plainsong681
- Anglican Use and Anglican Chant67
- Organ, Other Instruments and Repertoire418
- New Composition/Works in Progress1,232
- Recordings223
- Music for Hispanic Ministry155
- Music Education: Children207
- Music Education: General217
- News Items242
- Positions Wanted58
- General Discussion: Catholicism729
- Amusements173
- General Discussion1,009
- Opinions115