Reforming The Ordinary Form With Prayers From The Extraordinary Form

[Resurrexi]

Some other questions I would have asked is I could have added more than three questions on the poll:

Should Psalm 42 and the prologue to the Gospel of St. John be allowed at the beginning and end of the Ordinary Form of the Mass, respectively?

Should the prayer "Suscipe, sancta Trinitas, hanc oblationem..." be a part of the offertory prayers before the "Orate Fratres..." in the Ordinary Form?

Should the parts that are now optional (e. g. the listing of the names of the various Saints) in the Roman Canon when the Ordinary Form is used be made mandatory?

Should the Words of Consecration in the Ordinary Form be changed to be the same as those of the Extraordinary Form (i. e. should "HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, QUOD PRO VOBIS TRADÉTUR." be changed to "HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM."? And should "HIC EST ENIM CALIX SÁNGUINIS MEI NOVI ET AETÉRNI TESTAMÉNTI, QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDÉTUR IN REMISSIÓNEM PECCATÓRUM. HOC FÁCITE IN MEAM COMMEMORATIÓNEM." be changed to "HIC EST ENIM CALIX SÁNGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET ÆTÉRNI TESTAMÉNTI: MYSTÉRIUM FIDEI:QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDÉTURIN REMISSIÓNEM PECCATÓRUM." with the words "Hæc quotiescúmque fecéritis, in mei memóriam faciétis." being said after the Consecration of the Chalice and not part of the Consecration itself?)

Should the Memorial Acclamation be abolished?

Edited November 21, 2007 by StThomasMore

[st-annes]

I am sorry, I do not have enough experience with this issue in order to vote.

[jeffpugh]

Yeah, I can't really vote either. I have no idea what to say cause it's not my position. I'm a layman with no theological background. I'm also not a bishop... so... it's irrelevant.

[goldenchild17]

considering I believe the new mass is not a valid liturgy I would say no to all of the questions. I don't believe it would make any difference. It would make it nicer and somewhat more reverent possibly, but not valid and would only (in my opinion) serve to confuse a lot of people who would think (by these changes) that the new mass is okay, when in fact it doesn't change the essential issues.

edit: the changes regarding the consecration might make a difference, though I'm not sure that this alone would be enough in my mind, especially considering my problem with the validity of the new sacrament of holy orders.

edit again: this is just my opinion and won't debate it here on the phorum out of respect for the rules. If I'm given permission by a mod to go into further detail, I will, but not until then. peace

Edited November 21, 2007 by goldenchild17

[Aloysius]

Yes, Yes, Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

I think I answered all your questions.

[Resurrexi]

Do any of you theologically smart people who make awesome posts about liturgy have anything to say?

[PopeClementI(MorClemis)]

I don't think that we should create a hybrid liturgy. That is not organic development and led to a lot of the abuses that are now being corrected. A truly organic liturgy develops with time, use, and pious lay participation, not concocting something that suits the tastes of liturgists and "scholars".

[Aloysius]

Very often I say many in depth things about the liturgy. But lately I've been talking too much politics and my liturgical posts have become brief... like the last one i made in this thread lol. Haha...

oh, and for the sake of their humility, don't ask them to identify themselves as the "theologically smart people who make awesome posts about liturgy" lol... we all know you're talking about L_D and Apo (though you clash with him over eastern stuff) and maybe even me on a good day lol, but see, look how bashful I was to even list myself there... quite difficult to come out identifying yourself as a "theologically smart [person]... who make[s] awesome posts about liturgy" but everyone knows how smart, brilliant, elegant, symmetrical I am, not to mention me being the most humble person that ever lived

any interesting thing to note, the "Mysterium Fidei" in the Novus Ordo still refers to the consecration of the wine, not the memorial proclamation. It is the English translation which indicates a future tense "Let us proclaim the Mystery of Faith" which causes confusion and makes it seem as if the mystery of faith is referencing what follows; it's Consecration of the wine: a mystery of faith: then the people respond to that with a statement about the Eucharistic presence.

I don't think this would be a top-town mix and match hybrid style thing that would be non-organic; it would tie in this missal which already feels like a non-organic breech with the past into the past, like a bandage to a gaping wound in organic liturgical continuity... a bandaid may not be organic flesh, but it is necessary to restore organic flesh. things like the asperges, psalm 42 and the Last Gospel being made at least optional would be such a bandaid. the words of consecration thing, I personal feel ought to be done to heal that rift of continuity with our own liturgical traditions, and the term "mysterium fidei" really needs to be in a place which really emphasizes that it is the consecration which is the mystery of faith, and the statement about Christ's Eucharistic presence is a response to that mystery of faith; though even a different english translation might accomplish this if they really want to stick to the idea that "mysterium fidei" should not be included in those words because they are not found in the gospel account of Christ's words at the Last Supper. simply say after the consecration of the wine "A mystery of faith." and then have the congregation respond with the memorial acclamation. "let us proclaim" is the biggest problem with that thing (and that's the ICEL)

[Thomist-in-Training]

Obviously the OF would be better if it were more like the EF, but IMHO it would be best if it were so much like it that it WAS it. Capisce? I don't really follow the point of this poll.

ed.: clarified

Edited November 26, 2007 by Thomist-in-Training

[Aloysius]

I agree with you, but the Holy Father has made clear his vision for liturgical restoration, and it is not the complete abolition of the Novus Ordo by replacing it with the Traditional Mass. If you're a perfectionist/idealist like me, you'll have to wait for another pontificate to do that, but if you have a sense of realism, you'll realize that's not coming anytime soon. So, I say we get with the current Holy Father's program, he makes it clear in Summorum Pontificum that he wants the Novus Ordo to be enriched by the Tridentine Mass, that's why he gave that mass an extraordinary status, so that everyone ordinarily saying the Novus Ordo could witness the liturgical attitude that they ought to have in the ordinary form; and I think he's setting it up so that in time, he will say x, y, and z prayers from the old mass are now optional parts of the new mass... slowly you'll see the Novus Ordo begin to look more and more like a liturgy which is in continuity with that which was codified at Trent. I hope and pray that the Holy Father's words when he said stuff about how each mass could enrich the other was merely trying to be diplomatic towards the supporters of the new mass, I pray to God the furthest extent that it will ever work in the opposite direction is by the introduction of new saints into the old calander... but that is what he said, that he wanted the two missals to be mutually enriching; to me, that means the Extraordinary Form standing as a concrete standard against which to compare the Ordinary Form as the Ordinary Form begins to be more and more infused with portions of tradition.

the problem, of course, that I've always felt when bits and peices of traditional things have been introduced into a novus ordo, is that it really feels choppy and inconsistent; the traditional parts just seem to break up the flow of what would have otherwise flown as a fairly anti-historical liturgy and neither side, traditionalists or progressives, are happy about it.

[PopeClementI(MorClemis)]

My opinion - if the Pauline Rite were celebrated in EWTN-reverence, there would be nothing to fix.

Personally, I prefer a vernacular liturgy over a full Latin one, such as the Anglican Use or Sarum Rite celebrated in some parishes across the US/UK. I have attended the TLM celebrated by the priests of SSJC, and while it was reverent and beautiful, I think more lay participation is needed - perhaps a dialogue Mass, as is celebrated in France.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I realize that this is a hypothetical discussion and so my response will be little more than “what if” in tone. I’m not attempting any kind of serious engagement of the issues but am just putting forth my theoretical opinion in case you’re curious.

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1423303' date='Nov 21 2007, 04:05 PM']Some other questions I would have asked is I could have added more than three questions on the poll:

Should Psalm 42 and the prologue to the Gospel of St. John be allowed at the beginning and end of the Ordinary Form of the Mass, respectively?[/quote]
Sure, makes sense to me anyway. Since the ordinary form is all about options it seems that making it optional would have been less dramatic than abolishing it altogether.

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1423303' date='Nov 21 2007, 04:05 PM']Should the prayer "Suscipe, sancta Trinitas, hanc oblationem..." be a part of the offertory prayers before the "Orate Fratres..." in the Ordinary Form?[/quote]In my lowly opinion the ordinary form doesn't even have an offertory and the ideology behind the systematic destruction of the offertory can be summed up as liberal Protestant archaeologism at the service of modernist revisionism. The new "offertory" is basically a [i]berakhah[/i] prayer (Jewish grace before meals) and is one of the most deviant bastardizations of that Holy Mass which we have received from tradition. I have read some of the naive and now quite dated scholarship of that time which seeks to attack the traditional offertory on dubious grounds as well as that which pumps up the Protestant meal concept of the Mass and I think that it is about time that this has-been scholarly fad be reassessed and the unfortunate effects corrected. I'm sure anyone who reads the offertory of the extraordinary form along side the ordinary form's grace before meals will sense that we are dealing with a most striking departure from our liturgical tradition.
It is a rather long and dull story which I will spare you, but it came about largely as a result of hype over theories put forth by pioneers of modern liturgiology (Anglican scholar Gregory Dix for example). The basic idea is that the Jewish [i]berakah[/i] provides a model for the original shape of the [i]eucharistia[/i]. Blah, blah, blah, community meal, priesthood of the faithful, blah, blah, medieval accretions, et cetera. It would have been much better to simply expand the offertory verse into a chanted litany based on ancient sacramentaries rather than diving headlong into the [i]berakah[/i]-[i]chaburah[/i] fads of an immature scholarly discipline thereby inviting destruction and impoverishment into our liturgical tradition (to say nothing of the novel theology of the Eucharist that this represents).
Somewhat in defense of the change (rupture really) I would mention that of all the parts of the Mass the offertory is probably one of the most complicated when it comes to questions of liturgical restoration. There are many ways in which one could go if charged with a revision of the Roman Mass. I don't fault anyone for trying, I just think that the Church deserves better than what she got. Heck, in many ways the Anglicans cooked up a better "offertory" based on much of the same scholarship (check out their liturgical books for details). Perhaps my main concern is with the theology of the Mass that this new offertory is based on and expresses.

I must also allude to the ecumenical factor which I believe to be a part of this particular discussion. The traditional offertory is inseparable from the theology of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice et cetera whereas the [i]berakah[/i] theology was at that time a point of reference in ecumenical dialogue. If you think this may be paranoia and an exaggeration I must note that the ecumenical factor within the consilium is pretty well documented. In spite of the historical documentation I think a casual glance at Anglican and Lutheran rituals would be evidence enough that the new grace before meals is designed in such a way that even Protestants could pray it without offense.
I have been collecting scholarly journals from the 1960's and 70's for a while now and have learned a great deal about what the people involved were up to from their own mouths. It is not uncommon to encounter articles defending the explicit Protestantization of Catholic worship (including the idea that the Mass should be Protestantized so that we can all worship together), denials of the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist as defined by Trent, attacks on the nature of the priesthood that culminate in the idea of lay people celebrating Mass, et cetera, et cetera. One might say that this is to be expected as such things can be found in today's liberal journals (although certainly with less optimism and enthusiasm), but the point is that I'm talking about articles by the key scholars who were members or advisors to the consilium! Surely the consilium was a mixed bag, but it is easy to get at a core group of figures who were most influential and then it becomes most telling to read what they were discussing when they weren't busy revising the Catholic Mass. Anyway, I think the ecumenical dimension sheds some light on many of the decisions of the consilium.

Related to the berakah issue is that subject of the [i]Apostolic Tradition[/i] of Hippolytus. This is a subject related to a great many of the revisions to our rites and it comes into play on the subject of the offertory as well. For the sake of brevity (which I have already exceeded) I will simply note that the scholarship of the 50's and 60's on this subject is now poked full of holes and the centrality given to this source in the revision of the Roman rite ought to be cause for concern and impetus for some serious questions.

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1423303' date='Nov 21 2007, 04:05 PM']Should the parts that are now optional (e. g. the listing of the names of the various Saints) in the Roman Canon when the Ordinary Form is used be made mandatory?[/quote]
Quite frankly I believe that the excessive optionalism of the ordinary form is partly due to a misguided agenda of liturgical improvisation. My personal opinion would have to be yes on this one for a variety of reasons. I'm not outright against options in the liturgy or the local adaptations of rites, but in this case I fail to see the justification. I'm not entirely uninformed here either; I've read essays which discuss this precise subject and I'm just not convinced and quite frankly I find the impetus to be inappropriate.

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1423303' date='Nov 21 2007, 04:05 PM']Should the Words of Consecration in the Ordinary Form be changed to be the same as those of the Extraordinary Form (i. e. should "HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, QUOD PRO VOBIS TRADÉTUR." be changed to "HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM."? And should "HIC EST ENIM CALIX SÁNGUINIS MEI NOVI ET AETÉRNI TESTAMÉNTI, QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDÉTUR IN REMISSIÓNEM PECCATÓRUM. HOC FÁCITE IN MEAM COMMEMORATIÓNEM." be changed to "HIC EST ENIM CALIX SÁNGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET ÆTÉRNI TESTAMÉNTI: MYSTÉRIUM FIDEI:QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDÉTURIN REMISSIÓNEM PECCATÓRUM." with the words "Hæc quotiescúmque fecéritis, in mei memóriam faciétis." being said after the Consecration of the Chalice and not part of the Consecration itself?)[/quote]
This is really several questions which each deserve some multifaceted discussion. To make a long story short, yes, I find fault with, and totally disagree with the rationale behind these changes as I understand it. I've presented some of my take on your second question in other threads.

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1423303' date='Nov 21 2007, 04:05 PM']Should the Memorial Acclamation be abolished?[/quote]I have a somewhat mixed take on this one. There are different elements to the discussion based on which Eucharist prayer we're talking about but since I'm personally in favor of the Roman Canon and consider the new prayers to be impoverishments of the liturgical tradition rather than enrichments I'm sure my conclusion is obvious enough.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='PopeClementI(MorClemis)' post='1424450' date='Nov 25 2007, 12:51 AM']I don't think that we should create a hybrid liturgy. That is not organic development and led to a lot of the abuses that are now being corrected. A truly organic liturgy develops with time, use, and pious lay participation, not concocting something that suits the tastes of liturgists and "scholars".[/quote]
I certainly agree with this statement but I must make two points with regards to the subject of this thread.

1. The principle of organic development, as articulated in the teachings of the Church, does not mean that liturgical changes must only be unconscious, gradual developments. A liturgical change that is consistent with organic development, as opposed to a rupture with tradition, involves at least three primary qualities: a. It grows perceptibly from the existing forms; b. It only occurs when the good of the church genuinely and certainly requires it; c. Authentic development expresses the continuity of tradition and is thus opposed to archaeologism (exaggerated antiquarianism) as well as a narrowness of the spirit of the age; one implication here is that authentic liturgical reform is neither reductionistic nor rationalistic. (Cf. [i]Sacrosanctum Concilium[/i] 23; [i]Mediator Dei[/i] 61-64, 203; [i]Auctorem Fidei[/i] 33; et cetera)

2. The ordinary form (the subject of this thread) is, in the words of the key scholars involved, a [i]reconstruction[/i] of the Roman rite. As such I think that the question of organic development is radically apposite and that the prior form, as handed down by tradition, provides a benchmark by which to evaluate the fidelity of the new rites and discuss whether or not there are elements of rupture or inauthenticity in these rites which ought to be corrected. The liturgical renewal called for by the Council is still apparently a work in progress in the eyes of Rome (see for example Pope John Paul II, [i]Vicesimus Quintus Annus[/i] 23) and surely our current Pope has written much on the need to "reform the reform."

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='PopeClementI(MorClemis)' post='1425953' date='Nov 27 2007, 10:05 PM']My opinion - if the Pauline Rite were celebrated in EWTN-reverence, there would be nothing to fix.

Personally, I prefer a vernacular liturgy over a full Latin one, such as the Anglican Use or Sarum Rite celebrated in some parishes across the US/UK. I have attended the TLM celebrated by the priests of SSJC, and while it was reverent and beautiful, I think more lay participation is needed - perhaps a dialogue Mass, as is celebrated in France.[/quote]
Yeah, I am of the opinion that Roman Catholics ought to reclaim something of the original spirit of the liturgical movement and of the teachings of Pope Saint Pius X and Pope Pius XII on this subject (as well as Vatican II authentically understood). Nothing against the use of the vernacular, but I believe that the inestimable treasure of sacred music is the best route as far as "active participation" is concerned. I realize that these two things are far from mutually exclusive, but in the Roman church (ordinary form) these days vernacular singing seems to amount to any manner of profane religious tunes at the expense of the Mass itself. Let us also not forget that vernacularism is a grave heresy that has been repeatedly condemned by the Church. One of the most interesting implications of this heresy is that its condemnation would seem to oppose the notion that active participation requires the Mass to be entirely, or even mostly, in the vulgar tongue (the old activist misinterpretation of active participation).
Again, your statement about the dialogue Mass (a concept I hardly reject although I think it has been abused) reminds me of some recent posts - it is related to what I was saying above about the offertory when I indicated my opinion that expanding the offertory verse to a sung litany inspired by the ancient sacramentaries would have made more sense. It is also related to why I believe restoring the [i]Kyrie [/i]to its original status (it is not a penitential rite) and reviving a sung litany at this point of the liturgy based on traditional sources would have been superior to the improvised and rather awkward prayers of the faithful that we ended up with. I believe such things could have been done in a way consistent with organic development and authentic restoration as opposed to novel reconstruction. Although I must say that I see zero precedence (prior to the 1960's) for such wide scale liturgical reform in the first place and certainly not for the promulgation of a new order of Mass with the radical suppression of the previous and most venerable rites (a tragedy that the current Pope has worked to correct). Liturgy is by nature traditional and I see the revolutionary approach to liturgical renewal as being flawed in principle.

[PopeClementI(MorClemis)]

I am somewhat hoping that the Latin Church loosens up on it's uniformity. The allowance of a wider use of the other Western Rites - Carthusian, Mozarabic, Ambrosian, Sarum/AnglicanUse, and even the various monastic uses encourage organic development. Centrality tends to suppress it - I suppose this can only be a long-term goal, since these first have to be learned and only then can they develop.

For example, I don't see why the US can't be majority Sarum/Anglican Use, since it is English and is very high-Church and just as Catholic.

Any thoughts?