Wednesday, January 5, 2011

IS THE ORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS INTRINSICALLY FLAWED? DOES IT NEED A THOROUGH REFORMING?



I am old enough to remember how the laity in the Protestant south, Augusta, Georgia to be specific, felt about some aspects of the reformed Mass, the missal of 1970 which debuted the first Sunday of Advent, 1969. They felt it was too Protestant. Of course many of these southern Catholics would know--they themselves were formerly Protestant and have been received into the full communion of the Catholic Church.

Even as a teenager, I felt that there was certainly a dumbing down of the Mass. The music, especially its style, did not create a spiritual posture toward God but rather a posture that one felt when hearing popular or folk music on the radio or at some concert. Sloppiness in the name of less formality became in vogue. Altar servers once trained very well, didn't have a clue as to what they were doing or how to move around at the altar. Newly chosen lectors couldn't read or be heard.

But this following critique found in the very conservative blog, Rorate Caeli, is worth noting. But as you read it you must know that it comes from a blog that questions Vatican II. I don't do that!

Read the link by pressing the following:
A thorough comparison of the Traditional Latin Mass and the ordinary Mass from the blog Rorate Caeli.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

I agree that the ordinary form of the Mass is too colloquial. I was raised Episcopalian (in the 1960s and early 1970s, so I can't speak for what their current services are like), and when I occasionally attended Mass with my friends I thought the liturgy felt too casual. The soon-to-be-implemented translation of the Mass is actually very close to the old Episcopalian liturgy. Ironic that the Book of Common Prayer was closer to the original Latin than the Latin Rite liturgy!

Frajm said...

Allowing for the old Mass and the new English translation are a part of the reform of the reform. I think there will be further reform of the new Mass making it more like the older butin the vernacular.

Robert Kumpel said...

I'll admit that I have questions ABOUT Vatican II. I don't question its authority, I just have questions about the various ways that it appears to have been hijacked and misinterpreted. However, I also believe that God can even make good come of whatever mistakes mankind makes.

That said, I seldom get the sense of truly WORSHIPPING God and acknowledging Who He is from the Novus Ordo Liturgy and when I say seldom, that also means that once in a while I do. Therein lies the problem: It almost always depends on who the priest is--is he playing to the crowd, tampering or reverently following the rubrics? The older form, however, leaves much less room for such human interference.

Even so, it's so much easier to follow the Novus Ordo Mass--in fact, it takes little mental discipline. When I attend the EF, much more is required. Maybe that's a good thing. However, I think the two can co-exist. The Holy Father obviously thinks so, in spite of the massive insubordination that keeps it from happening in most parishes.

Von Von said...

Father Allen! I remember meeting you back when we use to go to church their in Macon! That church was very beautiful! I remember Monsignor Cuddy and Father Eric Filmer too! In your blog post today, that bishop, Bishop D'Arcy, he is the Bishop Emeritus of Fort Wayne, IN. Which is our new Diocese. Will you please follow my blog?

Anonymous said...

The inherent flaw in the NO Mass is that in the attempt to know everything going on instantly leaves one after a few years, wrong as it may be, bored. The Tridentine Mass is a lifetime of learning and discovery. The journey does not begin at 10:00 AM and end at 11:00. When teens and young people become adults and grow up they often leave the NO Mass behind them. Seen as something from their youth. It does not capture and hold but the most ardent Catholics. The rest fall away. This is the problem with a Mass that is too simplified with nothing to discover over one's lifetime.