Press the Headline for the full article, my recommendations or counter proposal below:
How the ordinary form of the Mass can “enrich” the extraordinary form
January 31, 2017
In Summorum Pontificum,
Pope Benedict hoped the celebration of the extraordinary and ordinary
forms of the Mass would be “mutually enriching.” So what healthier
elements of the ordinary form might benefit the extraordinary?
Bishop
Edward J. Slattery of Tulsa, Okla., celebrates a solemn high Mass in
the extraordinary form at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the
Immaculate Conception in Washington April 24, 2010. It was the first
time in 50 years that a Mass was held at the shrine according to the
1962 missal. (CNS photo/Matthew Barrick)
My counter proposal: Personally, I agree with what Fr. Stravinskas is recommending but I would do it in a different way.
DON'T TOUCH THE 1962 ROMAN MISSAL ONE IOTA!
HOWEVER, MAKE A SECOND OPTION THAT IS EF-LIKE FOR THE ORDINARY FORM ROMAN MISSAL OF 2011:
And it only takes the following:
Allow for the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar as well as the reordering of the revised Order of the Mass to reflect the EF Mass's order.
Use only the Roman Canon, silently in Latin, with EF Rubrics
Allow for the older form of the offertory prayers/rubrics
Keep the revised lectionary but allow for the Gradual and/or Tract in place of the Responsorial Psalm.
Keep the Communion Rite and order of the Concluding Rite as is, but add the Placeat and Last Gospel.
Mandate kneeling for Holy Communion, on the tongue and intinction as an option.
Apart from the Roman Canon, one can pick and choose what will be in the vernacular or in Latin.
18 comments:
I like the way you think! This would be wonderful.
Agreed, in toto, except perhaps that most elements of your second option for the OF should eventually be made mandatory.
Fr. McDonald,
I've not actually seen the Anglican ordinate missal, but from I've heard (here and elsewhere) of it, I suspect that permitting all Latin rite priests to use it freely would be a simple way of accomplishing your second option. Correct?
Indeed, during the last year or two of Benedict XVI's glorious reign, there was a rumor that something of this sort was in the offing perhaps by 2015, but of course with the election of the current pope this went by the boards.
To my understanding, the traditional Gradual and Tract are allowed in the Novus Ordo. They were never disallowed. The problem with these is that they do not align with the modernist spirit of active participation, where to be someone in our society you need to be an extrovert, and therefore to do external activities that everyone can see or hear such as singing. Doing something internal, such as listening and meditating on the reading, is anathema to this spirit.
I have the Anglican Missal as yes it is what I descrbe except with options peculiar to the Snglican patrimony as well as Elizabethan English.
All Fr Stravinskas's suggestions are problematic. At best they would suggest a return to 1965-7 which saw the Roman Rite mutilated out of all recognition.
The problem with the Ordinariate Missal is that it had to accept the 1970 Lectionary instead of that of the BCP which is largely that of Sarum and is close to the Tridentine. One hopes this will be rectified at a future date.
LOL! Good idea! I wonder aloud if the EF would find more traction in the NO parishes if it were to be allowed in English (vernacular)? I don't think that is neccessary but for the stiff necks of some folks.
Coming around to the Roman Canon as a viable sole option are we, Fr. McDonald? :)
Fr. Stravinskas is an interesting study. I have followed him for years and was quite surprised that he of all people suggested that the EF be modified instead of the OF. I would have thought he would be supportive of what Fr. McDonald is suggesting.
The OF cannot enrich the EF. That is absurd. As Aquinas would say, "A lesser cannot enlighten a greater." Vatican II made what now appear to be irrevocable changes in the Catholic Faith and Worship, and in the Catholic identity of both Priests and laity. Given the intransigence of the Vatican and the Popes since Vat II, and the proliferation of Priests like Kavanaugh and laity like Anon 2, I believe the Church is a qualitatively different entity and that this Pope is probably a harbinger of things to come. For a former protestant like me, theologically educated and steeped in Augustine, Aquinas, Luther and Calvin, there is considerable cognitive dissonance. Church doctrine has become a sort of museum piece, wonderful to look at, amazing in its intricacy, but not really relevant to our progressivist/humanistic beliefs and culture, into which the Church has plunged with great abandon. Although protestantism has gone completely to Hell, Catholicism is screaming at them, "Save a place for me!!" I am having a difficult time...because, if you place Calvin beside the current Catholic Church, TULIP looks pretty good. But, even Calvin is rapidly becoming a museum piece for prots, who would rather flop around like fish out of water in the same humanism that is infecting the Church. I am at a total loss. Perhaps the Faith is simply dying and the remnant needs to head for the catacombs, praying, "Even so, come Lord Jesus!"
TJM, I also have followed Fr. Stravinskas for years, and my initial start at praying Lauds and Vespers in Latin was with his fine Latin-English volume. He was a solid and respected advocate of the reform of the reform even before Cardinal Ratzinger named it that. However, I have long considered him unsympathetic to the TLM, and his predilection to Novus Ordo-ize it.
Gene: "I believe the Church is a qualitatively different entity and that this Pope is probably a harbinger of things to come."
I subscribe to the pendulum theory of history--that an extreme swing in one direction is likely to be followed by a swing in the opposite direction. If the present papacy descends much further into moral and doctrinal chaos (not to speak of heresy), it may render possible the election of a Burke or Sarah.
Henry,
From your mouth to God's ears!
Henry, I hope you are correct. But, pendulum swings go less far in each direction over time as the spring winds down. So, we end up in a muddling middle without much identity at all.
At this point, I'd even settle for another Paul VI over this.
RCG, we were told that the changes to the TLM would just be that the Mass would be said in the vernacular and nothing else would change ... of course it was just the beginning of the end ... the TLM in the vernacular would not be acceptable because it just wouldn't stop there - best to have two forms of the Mass and Catholics can choose to attend whichever Mass they prefer.
An excellent response to Fr. Stravinskas's article by Fr Marcello who says:
"It would seem that if this entire article were to be put into practice, then the EF would not merely be “enriched by” the OF, but with a few minor exceptions, it would in fact become the OF. Other than the prayers at the foot of the altar, the Last Gospel and perhaps some slightly different ceremonial ordering, the two rites would be indistinguishable."
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/5404/on__mutual_enrichment_and_universae_ecclesiae_a_response_to_fr_stravinskas.aspx
Jan, I agree with you. The EF in the vernacular(other than re-reading the gospel and epistle) is silly. This Rite would be the one place that would adhere to the Council's desire that the Latin Mass be preserved since most of the looney bishops fight tooth and nail to keep Latin out of the OF. I really don't get Father Stravinskas because in the bad old days he was one of the brighter lights when it came to using Latin and chant. If anything he should have written how the EF could enrich the banal OF and pull the OF closer to what reforms were intended by Vatican II
Post a Comment