Going against a hallowed tradition of 1500+ years isn't a strong argument, nor the fact that I am not going to Mass to learn Scripture for a 3/2 year cycle? Nor the fact that no liturgy ever featured this innovation, East or West? How about that no person can absorb all that in 3 years, except perhaps the most diligent person? Then tradition is reduced to nothing, and anyone can innovate as he pleases!!

Prof. Dobszay's arguments haven't been refuted, nor Msgr. Klaus Gamber's. I believe the argument that tradition is subverted to be the best one. An innovation of a mere 35 years that hasn't worked out in practice vs. a hallowed 1500+ year tradition? Give me Tradition any day!

There, I've said my bit. I know it's probably not going to convince you or others because of your subjective attachment to the new lectionary, but nonetheless thousands of saints and millions of laity were formed on the old lectionary.

We seem to be forgetting that the Liturgy of the Hours was created for the priests and religious, not the people in the pews. I'll bet most of your parents and grandparents didn't even know what the Liturgy of the Hours was.

All of these comments about the 'superiority' of the EF over the OF, or of Latin over English just sound like so much sour grapes to me. After Vatican II, the Mass was changed. Deal with it.

Matthew,

I didn't know that there were youngsters hereabouts. Welcome!

The discussion seems to have meandered to address the office because people on both sides of the argument were looking for more evidence to support their position.

Would it be fair to say that, as a rule, the Divine Office hasn't been promoted assiduously since the Council, and that -- therefore -- the Liturgy = the Mass in the minds of most? If that's true, then a three year cycle in the only experience of the liturgy is seen to trump a mere 1-year cycle. Proclaiming Holy Scripture at Mass presumes a greater knowledge by both reader and auditor. (If you've seen the thread-s about silly things lectors say, you know that reading more doesn't make one proficient, much less knowledgeable). In part, the question of the lectionary is a question about the entire liturgical reform project.

Cheers,

Chris

Agreed on recovering the proper chants.
And yet, on a practical level, the 3 year cycle makes familiarization of the propers more out of reach. There are far more Sunday chants to learn for the average choir and to for the faithful to prayerfully absorb when using the '74 GR than the 61/62 LU. Having served as a schola director of volunteers attempting Sunday mass propers in both the EF and the OF, it has been my experience that it is much more difficult to learn the rotation of propers in the OF. More variety, less continuity.

Which brings me around to this post, because "more variety but less continuity" is also my personal experience with the expanded lectionary. I'd rather study Scripture on my own time and assimilate lessons on a yearly cycle, which I also find wise in terms of a natural yearly rhythm. It seems deeper and more ordered to me.

We seem to be forgetting that the Liturgy of the Hours was created for the priests and religious, not the people in the pews.

Not necessarily. Eastern churches pray the hours, open to and including all parishioners, and give them pretty high status. In fact, attending Vespers is equivalent to attending Divine Liturgy on Sunday. One can do either or both. I find the combination of the two opens new doors to understanding both scripture and liturgy.

A friend of mine said, “Catholicism lost so much when the Mass was changed.”

Yes, it did. If those revisionists at Trent had just kept their hands off it...

And useless repetition is relative: I have a feeling that that is why the old ICET/ICEL 'Glory to God' truncated the first ejaculations (Laudamus te, Benedicimus te, &c) and the 'Lamb of God' litany in the middle.

And if repetition is useless: why didn't they compose different hymns for the ordinary? We could use the 'Gloria' on some Sundays, but we could also substitute 'Te Deum' or 'Te decet Laus'. And they also should have scrapped the second Hosanna in the Sanctus - since we've already sung it once already. And heck, we could even have the option of scrapping 'Benedictus' altogether and substitute in 'Ave Verum', or 'O Salutaris',--but not, of course, 'Pie Jesu', that's too morbid! And we also need to make sure that none of the congregational hymns have refrains, too much useless repetition.

What exactly constitutes useless repetition? Waiting a whole year for Pentecost XII to come round again doesn't seem like useless repetition to me.

Useless repetition is very relative but it's also not without any meaning. Also, I did not intent to mean that the 1-year cycle creates useless repetition. Only that when SC admits that "useless repetition" is a good enough reason to modify the liturgy, they're setting the bar really low. It's a response to those who claim that Vatican II didn't authorize the OF as it exists today.

If we want to compare the New and old Lectionary we need to ask some questions,

Question,
How Important are the readings at Mass?
Let us say on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 - Not important, 10 - Very important.
Well for me I would say 3, I go to Mass for the Sacrificial aspect. I would suspect that many people attending the E.F. would give answers between 1 and 5. I also suspect that those attending the O.F. would give a wider range say 1-8 I base this from seeing the Confirmation classes attitude to the Faith, illustrated by how many are seen in church after their Confirmation (This is and O.F. class). I am sure many protestants would answer in the 7-10.

Question,
Are the readings in the Mass part of a comprehensive course in Bible study?
Well looking at the 3 year lectionary we could say maybe, looking at the E.F. we could say maybe not.

Question,
Has the 3 year cycle (2 year cycle, 1 year cycle) in the O.F. been a success? AND how could we measure this?
I will suggest Mass attendance, numbers of Ordinations, Baptisms, Marriages, COULD be a good measure. I could conclude that this would show that the new cycles are NOT a success.

Scripture is not better understood by reading it or hearing it, even in the vernacular (it helps), but by studying it. Hearing it proclaimed at Mass does not aid in understanding (it aids in spiritual growth, etc.). Only study, and that with the aid of sound commentaries, can deepen understanding.

This (Commentaries) is something that we can find plenty of books written for the E.F. (St. Andrew Daily Missal, Gueranger, Liturgical year are good examples. I prefer to do my Bible study outside the Mass, with just the two E.F. Readings takes time, can we (the average catholic) really cope with 3?

Do Catholics truly have a better understanding (comprehension, not simply acknowledgement of a flow of vernacular words of which one knows the meaning) of Scripture now? I allow that vernacular readings are better for comprehension, though hearing Scripture read in Latin gave a better connection to the music in Latin (and vernacular Scripture can be read before or after Mass, or in the homily).

That is without the problem of Lay readers that can't read, poor translations, editing out of 'difficult' passages, and the difficultly for the average catholic to know which cycle is being used. I would be interested in the results of a survey after an O.F. Mass as to what percentage of the congregation know which Year the readings are from, and how many have Missals / Commentaries to follow along at home.

Amy Welborn made a point regarding the supposed superiority of Mass in the vernacular several years ago: she said, after the Collect, turn to anyone in the church and ask them to repeat what was just said. Her guess, and mine also, would be very few people could do that. Merely reading something in your own language does not guarantee understanding or even intelligent interest.

Oh, and if I remember correctly, we don't have a single EF parish in the diocese.

We have had 4 new priests ordained in each of the past two years. There are usually 8 or more in seminary at any given time. Keep in mind this is a small diocese. The vocations office really works at this, so things are looking pretty good.

Excellent have we found a new rule?
Those in places that have successful N.O. parishes with regular vocations, do not think that the E.F. is the answer.

So can I ask what are you doing that makes you successful, and why cannot this be brought to solve the problems of the many diocese that are declining rapidly!

Some of us cling to the OF because...

1) I work there and it is the mass I am paid to play/conduct for.
2) It reflects reforms that were greatly needed and overdue in the old rite.
3) It follows the liturgical books to the letter.
4) I have little interest in medieval, Civil War, or any other variety of let's pretend reenactment.
5) I have never been afraid of anything or anyone in my life. If there is any fear, it is among those who want to retreat into a past that they think was idyllic.
6) The music is excellent and represents the best we are capable of performing - should be the case in both rites.
7) I have never bought any arguments for liturgical languages.
8) The Church has a right to control its liturgy and its celebration of that liturgy. The keys of the kingdom were not given to the anachronistic among us, but to legitimate Church authorities.

Does all this mean I want to take away the EF? No, of course not. Celebrate it all you like. I am just tired of holier-than-thou old ritualists telling everyone else, including Church authorities, they are wrong.

There are people not discussed here, of course, who promote the OF.

I did cover that situation, Charles. I'm not being "holier than thou", or any such nonsensical thing.

I did cover that situation, Charles. I'm not being "holier than thou", or any such nonsensical thing.

I don't promote the OF, just try to do the best job possible with it. It is my job to do exactly that, meeting the requirements laid down by lawful authority.

Nonsensical? Just because you say it doesn't make it so. LOL.

Charles,

I know people, personally, who cling to the OF for the reasons I stated in explicit form. I also know that there are others who cling to the OF for other reasons, including but not limited to ... a) it never occurred to me to attend Mass in any other form; b) I didn't know that the Latin Mass was available or even legal (yes, such people exist); c) My parish doesn't offer the Extraordinary Form, and I like the (CCD, youth program, pastor......).

That I stated the truth seems to bother you, but I can't guess why, and I won't try.

What I claimed to be nonsensical was your implication that I (or other people you call old ritualists) am taking an attitude of "holier than thou". True, my claiming such doesn't make it true, just as my not claiming it wouldn't make it false.

"I disagree with Charles" and "I prefer the EF" are not synonymous with "You are a piece of turd which I will not deign to scrape off my shoe".

@ClemensRomanus - Our parish is in the Diocese of Tyler.

Actually it doesn't. Let's say there are no issues of holiness or ignorance involved. What would really fix things would be if those who carp continually about the NO would actually do something to try and fix the problems. That is much harder to do.

What you call carping is carping in some people, true, but not in everyone who finds fault with the rite, even if the finding of fault is frequent.

True. I am not one to take to the hills or hide out when things are not good. I stay and fight. The victories are not always large, and sometimes they take years. I can deal with that.

I hope Paul VI wasn't a Mason, although I have heard him and close associates accused of that for years.

I'm not exactly sure how those critical of the OF would go about "fix[ing] the problems," other than help to ensure that celebrations of both the EF and OF are as reverent as possible - which is what most are already doing.

That, and a few steps I have found practical when dealing with music. CharlesW's 10 rules for sacred music.

1. Slowly wins the race. Plan on implementing good music over a period of years, not next week.
2. Seek supporters among the key people in the parish.
3. Cultivate the wealthy in the parish. You want to be their friend and gain their support. They have the ear of the pastor like you may never have.
4. Keep a few congregational favorites and use them periodically. You may not like them, but the congregation gets warm feelings toward you.
5. Be there for the pastor. Assume he wants to do the right thing and needs your support.
6. Keep the pastor and associate "in the loop" on everything. They don't like surprises.
7. Support the parish financially as best you can. It puts you in a good light.
8. Make sure the pastor has the materials he needs to support good music. See that everything he needs to participate is in the right place and ready for his use.
9. When anyone says something supportive, ask them to relay that to the pastor.
10. Pick your battles wisely. Don't fight over trivial things you either can't win, or are not worth the time and effort you put into the fight.

As for the critical, if you leave and complain from outside the OF, you don't have much credibility. You are gone and it doesn't affect you. Whatever problems may be part of the OF are not experienced by you. You are somewhere else and have no real standing to complain.

If you didn't leave, complain constructively. Present logical and reasonable arguments on how to make specific items better. Whining accomplishes nothing.

You will notice that all the above has to do with creating conditions where you can do good sacred music. It doesn't help to be technically proficient in music if the support structures are not in place. You will fail.

There are only TWO PEOPLE IN CREATION WHO COULD FIX THE N.O.:

H.H. FRANCIS, Bishop of Rome

and

H.E. Robert Card. SARAH, Prefect of the CDW

And, unless I'm much mistaken, neither of them frequents this Forum.

Also, the problems with the post-Vat.2 Mass are not the only problems with the Neo-Roman Rites: The Mass was changed to something unrecognizable in the Latin Liturgical Tradition as the Roman Rite; the rites for all of the Sacraments were changes, the Divine Office was mutilated, etc.

TBH, Implementing Sacred Music is all well and fine, but the problems are much deeper than whether a parish uses Palestrina or Haugen, and no amount of Gregorian Chant can fix that.

And, if you think that those of us who find fault with the New Rites just need to get over it: Imagine the outcry in the East if a committee of Bugnini-style "experts" decided to mutilate John Chrysostom, "Novus Ordo Style"?

Opening Verse: Retained
Great Litany: Cut (too much needless repetition)
Antiphons and Little Litanies: Cut (too much needless repetition)
Little Entrance: Retained
Trisiagon: Once only, Cut Glory Be
Litany of Supplication & Great Entrance: Shorten litany, Lord have mercy once only, too needless much repetition
Roman Canon, and Canon of St. Hipolytus inserted as options
Prayer to the Theotokos: Cut (too much Mary, offensive to Protestants)
Litany after Holy Communion: Shortened, repetitions from previous litany cut.

Rubrics: Cherubic hymn must be sung by all, together (no more polyphony), remove Iconostasis, say liturgy 'facing the people', Sub-Diaconate supressed.

And then called the New Divine Liturgy. I don't think it'd fly, do you?

I had to laugh at the comment of running to the hills or hiding out when things aren't good being used to describe those who believe the EF to be superior to the OF. Why? Because it's a ridiculous and (to parrot Adam) extraordinary! I think you'll find that many who take that opinion (EF is superior) have spent years working in their own parishes (which are purely OF) or around trying to make things better. I know many people personally who have done such things. You know what has happened in my area?

1. We were called "divisive" by a priest because we requested one EF per year.

2. One priest who was favorable found that he was being tracked by the diocese for even permitting one EF to be said at his parish. That's right, he got a call from the diocese: "Oh, Father, we hear you're having an EF at your parish..." Harassment, in short.

3. When we do get one, it's every third Saturday and only when there's a full moon within that week.

4. We get so-called "liturgists" who try to hide everything in the sacristy so we can't find candles, a crucifix, or anything else needed for the EF.

This isn't running and hiding. Frankly, it's being in the thick of it and quite often there's, simply put, persecution from the priests, bishops, and laity. Yes, it is persecution when a priest is moved from a parish because he says the EF. It's persecution when a priest is punished by having all his help removed because he says the EF. It's persecution when a bishop forbids a retired priest from saying the EF. And, yes, all that happens around here.

Running? Hiding?

And finally, there's the saying "by their fruits you shall know them."

Around here, we get rotten fruit from the OF.

Locally, at least, the greatest barrier to a wider use of the EF is finding priests who are willing to celebrate it. Many don't have any desire to or see that the numbers are not there to support it. The EF is freely available weekly in my parish. The attendance isn't that great.

Fix the NO? I wonder if those who think the NO is broken have any idea how drastic changes were at Trent and how those changes were initially accepted. Probably not. I wonder if some folks alive at the time considered the Tridentine liturgy as something unrecognizable. Any significant change will have that effect.

Change in the eastern liturgy? I think most of the east considers itself fortunate to not have a pope. There is a price to pay for investing all authority in one office. The eastern liturgies could be changed, but it would take a pan-Orthodox council. The patriarchs are very turf conscious and getting them to agree on anything would take an act of God. Most differences of opinion in the east have little to do with liturgy and it is not seen as an issue.

the problems are much deeper than whether a parish uses Palestrina or Haugen

Yes

...and no amount of Gregorian Chant can fix that.

I respectfully disagree, or at least, claim that we are not in a position to know.

One very small, tiny, teensy, example: Recently I've had the occasion (twice, now) to serve as cantor in a church where, I strongly suspect, chant had never yet been heard, and I was in the unusual position of choosing the music with very little oversight from the priest. So, among other things, I chanted the propers. Several people from that parish have approached me and asked more about it, the tradition of the Church, etc.

Are they going to return to their pastor and demand an EF mass? A radical overhaul in how they approach the OF? Of course not. Prior to their approaching me, they didn't even know that such a thing as the EF existed...

But that's how it starts. Speaking solely for myself, I will not dismiss the possibility of positive long-term effects of introducing a bit of our Church's tradition back into the mass. I understand and feel the motives for cynicism, but I refuse to go there.

. imitating Jackson here. LOL. Double post for some reason.