As far as I can tell from the history of the Latin Rite, this is the first time that we have had two distinct rites of the Mass. Of course there are several different rites in the Latin Rite and in the Eastern Rite. While each differs in minor or major ways, each celebration of the Mass, no matter the rite or style, if valid, celebrates the great Tradition of the Mass--the re-presentation of the One Sacrifice of Jesus and the Paschal Banquet of the Sacrificial Victim who is consumed for our salvation.
One may like the Liturgies of the Eastern Rites because these are in fact more ethereal and other-worldly than even the Extraordinary Form of the Latin Rite Mass. Or one may prefer the Ordinary Form of the Mass for its flexibility, intelligibility and noble simplicity. One may appreciate that standing for Holy Communion has ancient roots as testified by the Eastern Rite of the Church whose members have always stood to receive Holy Communion and from the time of the Church Fathers. They have always understood that standing for prayer and receiving our Precious Lord is a Resurrection posture, a sign of being "raised up" in the Passion, death and Resurrection of Jesus celebrated at every Divine Liturgy.
Others in the Latin Rite prefer to kneel for receiving Holy Communion as a sign of adoration, humility and respect and linking them to a very long tradition in the Latin Rite of kneeling.
Others prefer the Extraordinary Form because it is more rigid and universal in its celebration and language and varies little from parish to parish and country to country.
Still other prefer the Ordinary Form of the Mass as it goes back to the early Church in style and content and in this sense is the Traditional Mass of the Church in terms of the use of the vernacular language, the structure of the Mass and its noble simplicity.
Others prefer the spirituality of the EF Mass as it is more contemplative. Whereas others prefer the OF Mass for its ability to enable them to participate more actively and in community with the priest and others in the congregation. They like the involvement of the laity which shows that the Church is both the clergy and the laity who form the Body of Christ with Jesus, the Bridegroom as her Head. They feel more united to the priestly actions of the Mass.
Whereas others prefer the EF Mass as showing forth more clearly the High Priest of the Church, Jesus Christ who on our behalf saves us from sin and death by becoming the Church sacrificial Victim.
But make no mistake, the Church will eventually return to one Roman Missal. It may appear more like the EF in style and spirituality and more like the current OF in language and intelligibility and lavishness of Scriptures and then both the current OF Missal and the 1962 EF Missal will be suppressed.
I'm not clairvoyant, but maybe I am, but I can't say when that will happen but certainly not before the end of the world on my birthday this year of 2012, December 21st when the Mayan calendar runs out.
But in the meantime, the OF Mass will be the normal Mass of the Latin Rite and the EF Mass will be the exception to the normal form for those who request it.
5 comments:
"They feel more united to the priestly actions of the Mass."
This is what troubles me about the OF. Some people take this too far and see their share in the priesthood of Christ as somehow equal with the ordained priesthood. Some ask, "If women are members of the royal priesthood of Christ, then why can't women be ordained?" Others ask, "If we all participate in the priesthood of Christ, why do we need ordained priests?" I have even heard people saying the eucharistic prayers of the priest out loud with the priest during Mass.
Some people just don't understand limits. They are taking "higher places at the table" than where they should be. Didn't Christ tell us to take the lowest place, so that the Master could guide us upward to our assigned place?
Maybe this is part of the reason why people experience being drawn upward toward God in the EF? I'm not saying that the OF is bad, it's just that I've noticed that if people are given more FREEDOM to participate, the ignorant tend to see it as LICENCE to do all.
May I suggest, Fr. McDonald, that it can be a mistake to set the two forms of the Roman rite in opposition to each other by setting forth separate lists of merits that one has and the other presumably lacks. Doesn't such an approach posit a dichotomy that ought not to exist? Surely, if each form presents the traditional Mass of the Church, they should have the same goals and strengths.
As I believe they do, when celebrated well and properly. For instance, on Christmas Eve I viewed the telecast of the papal midnight (OF) Mass from Rome, and next day attended a solemn high (EF) Mass in my own parish. There were some external differences, of course, but I cannot say there was really any great difference in either spirit or efficacy of worship.
So while there may well be differences observed the reverence of celebration of different Masses celebrated in different places by different priests, I believe it is unconstructive to attribute this to the forms themselves, or to set groups of the faithful in opposition by emphasizing opposition rather than unity in their common aspirations for faithful liturgy.
Father MacDonald said:
"But in the meantime, the OF Mass will be the normal Mass of the Latin Rite and the EF Mass will be the exception to the normal form for those who request it."
Well Thank you, that is at least clear and unequivocal. We will NOT be seeing any expansion of the EF at St Joseph beyond what we have today.
"Others prefer the Extraordinary Form because it is more rigid and universal in its celebration and language and varies little from parish to parish and country to country."
You're definitely onto something on this one, Father. I know we have to be obedient and accept the competent authority of the Church on these liturgical matters but I've never understood that obedience to preclude our being curious in honestly seeking and trying to understand the Church's reasoning behind its decisions in these matters. Further, I've never been taught that we can't still privately disagree with these decisions (after examining the reasons) while still acting in outward obedience at Mass.
Here's the part I guess I've missed out on all these years: I've always assumed that the OF was to be a "reform" of the EF. I've always understood the reasoning behind the expanded Lectionary and the option for the vernacular, while still retaining the universal Latin as an option (which should actually be used enough to give it a continuing "life" as a real option).
Because things were so much more universal and uniform throughout the Latin Rite before the OF (which I've always seen as a positive and unifying aspect), I've never understood the reasoning nor the need to legislate different customs or usages in the Latin Rite, especially when the population had already been used to the previous, more uniform, way of doing things.
I've always thought that customs were based on previous habits and usages and might slowly evolve but are not (without very compelling reasons) to be suddenly and artificially changed by sudden decree. If Americans had been used to a norm of kneeling for Communion prior to the late 60's or early 70's (for generations) what justifies changing the norm for Americans and not, possibly, for others? Is there something about the American culture that motivated this? Can you at least understand why we feel envious and confused when we see the Pope requiring people to kneel for Communion and hearing that it is still the "universal norm" but we (because of where we live) can't do this because we have our own "norms" which aren't what they were within some of our earlier lifetimes.
I'm not questioning the authority here---I'm like the child who asks "why?" (my mother has said that I used to do that all the time as a child and I guess I've not grown out of it!). If you want to treat me like an adult now, don't just tell me that I must do something because the Church says so without giving the reasons it says so. I'll obey (whether I agree or disagree, as I have during most of my life) but I will feel better about the obedience if I can understand why.
What is the reasoning for having national norms in a universal Church when we had been used to universal norms in a universal Church? Yes, I know that even in pre-Conciliar days there was some variation in church art, music, and other incidentals but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the all-to-present problem of lack of uniformity in OF practices (which Marc has touched on earlier when he commented that at least in the EF he knew what awaited him almost anywhere in the EF Mass--no surprises!).
I see the new English Translation as the Church trying to bring the English speaking sector back into a more universal way of praying as it has been corrected to track more closely with the universal Latin. Until this was done, I was dissatisfied and puzzled as to why our translation had to be different from more accurate versions used by other language groups. I feel the same way about liturgical norms. Why should Americans be different? I don't want to be "AmChurch." I want to be ultraMontane, as we were in the days of the older Rite.
"Still other prefer the Ordinary Form of the Mass as it goes back to the early Church in style and content and in this sense is the Traditional Mass of the Church in terms of the use of the vernacular language, the structure of the Mass and its noble simplicity."
I'm not convinced this is true. I think "they" have been telling us this to convince us of the merits of the Novus Ordo, but I think it's been pretty well disproven. Maybe you could expand on what you mean?
With regard to there being one rite in the future, I pray that doesn't happen in my lifetime unless it is a complete reversion to the Tridentine Mass as it exists. It would really be a travesty to try to simply mash the "rites" together. As I've mentioned before on here, I believe the Holy Ghost kept the Tridentine Mass suppressed during the post-Concilliar years so it would not be subject to the liturgical craziness we have seen. Now we have the beautiful Mass as it was in a time capsule and can eventually move forward with a true organic development, i.e. adding the newer saints into the calendar.
Post a Comment