Pope Francis has approved the revised Anglican Use or Rite Mass. It allows for archaic English for the Mass according to the 1662Anglican Prayerbook as well as modern English but even more formal than our glorious new English translation!
But the real bombshell that bodes well for future revisions to the OF Mass allowing EF elements is that the new Ordinariate Missal allows these options now and this approved by Pope Francis!
What are these EF options?
1. Prayers at the Foot of the Altar!
2. The EF Offertory Prayers!
3. The Last Gospel!
Keep in mind the Ordinariate Revised calendar has many EF elements restored too , like Septuagesima and ember days!
And ad orientem is clearly the preferred option!
PRAYTELL HAS SPECIFICS FROM THE ORDINARIATE MISSAL WHICH YOU CAN READ THERE AND HAVE YOUR SOCKS BLOWN OFF! PRESS HERE!
12 comments:
Wouldn't it be great to have the option of the actual Latin EF Mass as well as an English version of the same Mass (with translations like the Ordinariate) on the local parish schedule? What more could you want? Isn't this a legitimate alternative vision of full implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium but without the Novus Ordo Mass as it has been typically celebrated in most parishes?
Essentially this is exactly what moderate trads have proposed all along, an English translation of the Tridentine Missal(s).
Ordinariate priests now have the option of a) the 3rd edition of the Roman Missal, in Latin or English; b) the Missal of 1962, and c) a mixed-rite Missal incorporating, as legitimate options, elements of the 1962 Missal some of which (eg Ps 42 and the Last Gospel) were dropped from the Roman Rite in 1965. The rest of the Catholic clergy only have the first two options.
However, the Holy See seems to have accepted in principle the mixing of rites, and it can be argued that since Summorum Pontificum maintained that the EF and OF were the same Roman Rite it would technically not be mixing rites to include elements of the 1962 Missal into the OF. This is already happening as regards rubrics in some OF celebrations (and this includes restoring some of the elements of the old Ceremonial of Bishops into OF Pontifical Masses).
BTW, the traditional language, derided by some of the know-alls at PTB, isn't faux-Tudor; it's the style of language used by all Catholics and Anglicans when praying or singing in English up until the mid-1960s; and the translation of the Offertory prayers are familiar enough to those brought up to follow the Mass in a bi-lingual missal.
Can we convert?
Yes, Pray Tell has coverage if by "get your socks blown off" you mean "go watch a bunch of people who clearly know waaaaaaaaay better than Christ's own Church whine about language they'll never have to worship in"!
Why was the Last Gospel removed from the NO? Was it because it never changed? Of all things, the LG is among my favorite parts of the EF—if only because the passage is one of my favorite passage of the Bible.
Was not the previous prohibition of "mixing of rites" abrogated by SP--which abrogated previous conditions and restrictions--declaring in fact the OF and EF not to be different rites, but different forms of one and the same Roman rite?
Otherwise, what was the encouragement of "mutual enrichment" supposed to mean? Though, of course, it may be that the rigid rubrics of the EF exclude most such enrichment, while the loose norms of the OF admit it.
The Last Gospel did change until around 1962. There were several proper Last Gospels for different feasts and days.
Flavius, the Last Gospel was removed from the Mass five years before the Novus Ordo, in the first tranche of the Bugnini wreckovation. Don't forget that the Novus Ordo couldn't be introduced until the Roman Rite had effectively been destroyed. It took a mere three years to achieve this (1964-1967).
Indeed, John, one theory is that Bugnini et al convinced Paul VI that a New Order (Novus Ordo) of the Mass was necessary to rescue the liturgy from the chaos into which it had descended in the five years post Vatican II, with rubrics being ignored carte blanche and dozens or even hundreds of Eucharistic Prayers circulating and being constantly changed out in the loose-leaf binders that had replaced altar missals.
Another theory is that Paul VI was pulling Bugnini's strings behind the scenes, and therefore required no such convincing.
I wonder why no one has written a definitive history of this fascinating period when the whole character of the Catholic Church was abruptly and forcibly changed. Or has someone?
Does anyone actually object to these three being added to the NO? I'm sure some would object if PTB or Fishwrap told them to, but seriously, these don't seem like anything a reasonable person should object to.
Especially the LG. The Gospels are… indescribably important to the Church. Why would they be removed? This type of IDIOCY…
I should stop before I revert to teenage internet rage.
A few weeks ago I was at an EF Low Mass where the priest, who was not completely au fait with the rubrics, neglected to close the missal after the Postcommunion prayer. This would normally be a signal for the server to move the missal to the gospel side, as the Last Gospel was to be Proper; thankfully he didn't! I started serving Mass in 1959 and never once had to move the book.
The reciting of the beginning of John's Gospel was originally a private devotion of the priest as he left the altar, and remained so in the Sarum Use. The Dominican Use adopted it (reluctantly) in the 17th century and dropped it in 1963. The practice of reciting it at the altar seems to have been a Roman custom which emerged in the 13th century, and was not universally used until the imposition of the 1570 Missal.
It can argued that the 1960s reformers wanted to rid the rite of late medieval accretions, of which the Last Gospel is one, and yet they retained the blessing, another late development (which is why in the Tridentine Mass it occurs after the dismissal).
Post a Comment