Extraordinary Form Mass:
Ordinary Form Mass:
Was Sacrosanctum Concilium wrong in seeking a modest reform of the Tridentine Mass?
No!
We tend to glorify the past forgetting the bad things and remembering things in an idyllic way.
In most parishes prior to Vatican II, most people preferred the Low Mass because it was short. It was short because there was no singing although some parishes did sing traditional Catholic hymns at the beginning, Offertory and recession.
The Mass was said by the priest in Latin at breakneck speed. Why? Because he wanted to get it over with. Some Low Masses, usually weekday, but also the Sunday Low Mass, could be finished in 15 minutes by some priests. That is a liturgical abuse to say the least. When prayers are rattled off at break speed in order to shorten things, Rome we have a problem.
I have watched a couple of Fr. Z's live streamed Low Masses from a makeshift chapel on a cluttered altar in his room I guess. For his private devotion and spirituality and prayer life there is nothing wrong with that.
What I dislike is how fast he recites the Latin EF Low Mass. Not only would most laity who have some working knowledge of Latin not be able to keep up, God Himself can't. How does rattling off prayers as quickly as possible in Latin or the vernacular give God glory, worship, and praise?
If the Mass is deemed too long by some celebrants and for centuries, the only solution to shorten it was by speed reading the Mass in Latin, no Communion to the laity and no chanting of the Mass.
How could we shorten the Mass but maintain its dignity? Let's start with shortening the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar. Let's eliminate the longer Offertory Prayers for something shorter. Let's do away with the separate Communion Rites for the priest and then for the laity (the triple Dominus non sum dignus, for him and then for the laity) . Just have one communion rite for both and just say the Dominus non...once.
Get rid of the placeat and Last Gospel.
But then what happened? We added the interminable Responsorial Psalm with multiple useless repetition of refrains in place of the nobly simple Gradual. Then we added a second reading. We added the interminably long General Intercessions, aka, those boring things and we added the useless presentation of the gifts often in elaborate ways. The gains in removing the PATFOFA in terms of brevity were lost with the reorganization of the Liturgy of the Word, the General Intercessions and the offertory procession.
In addition to that, we lengthened Sunday Mass with an army of unneeded Eucharistic Ministers parading to the altar to assist with Holy Communion, usually more than necessary pandemic producing common chalices. Distributing Holy Communion to a hoard of Extraordinary Ministers takes a lot of time, time we'll never get back.
And then when the Council asked for a more lavish use of Scripture by lengthening the Liturgy of the Word with additional readings, they allowed the Introit, Offertory Antiphon and Communion Antiphon to be substituted with metrical hymns that were not Scripture. Hello?
But then we were given a shorter Eucharistic Prayer in Prayer II. So we could make longer, more repetitive and beyond people's retention of added Scripture the Liturgy of the Word by shortening the centerpiece of the Mass, the Eucharistic Prayer. And even that in the vernacular is rattled off in at a quick pace.
The good thing about the more lavish recovery of the EF Mass is that we can see what needs to be reformed in both it and the OF Mass! How brilliant is that!
So, here goes once again, my reform of the Tridentine Mass based on the reform in continuity of the OF Mass which cannot be erased but used as a springboard toward what SC actually envisioned, in my most humble and holy opinion:
1. Latin is mandated for the Introit, Gloria, Credo, Offertory antiphon, Sanctus, Agnus Dei,, Communion Antiphon and the vernacular for the other parts as an option.
Introductory Rite:
Introit
At the Foot of the altar:
Opening sentence:Priest: I will go to the altar of God. Response: The God of my youth.
Sign of the Cross
Confiteor
Absolution
(priest ascends to the altar and remains at center for Kyrie and Gloria)
Kyrie (always in Greek and nine fold)
Gloria
Greeting (facing the congregation)
Collect (at Epistle side of altar)
Liturgy of the Word (at ambo)
First Reading
Gradual
Gospel Acclamation/tract
Gospel
Homily
The Liturgy of the Eucharist
Credo (at center of altar)
Offertory
Roman Canon for Sunday, Canon II as option for weekday, no other canons
eliminate mystery of faith and incorporate into Roman Canon as in EF and integrate into Canon II
Doxology and Great Amen as in OF
The Rite of Holy Communion:
Pater Noster
additional prayers as in OF Mass
Fraction Rite
Agnus Dei
Dominus non sum dignus (three times)
Communion of priest and then laity
Communion Antiphon
The Concluding Rite:
Prayer after Holy Communion at altar's Epistle side
Placeat at center of altar
Blessing
dismissal
The Mass is ad orientem. Communion is distributed at the altar railing to kneeling communicants.
Ordinary Form Mass:
Was Sacrosanctum Concilium wrong in seeking a modest reform of the Tridentine Mass?
No!
We tend to glorify the past forgetting the bad things and remembering things in an idyllic way.
In most parishes prior to Vatican II, most people preferred the Low Mass because it was short. It was short because there was no singing although some parishes did sing traditional Catholic hymns at the beginning, Offertory and recession.
The Mass was said by the priest in Latin at breakneck speed. Why? Because he wanted to get it over with. Some Low Masses, usually weekday, but also the Sunday Low Mass, could be finished in 15 minutes by some priests. That is a liturgical abuse to say the least. When prayers are rattled off at break speed in order to shorten things, Rome we have a problem.
I have watched a couple of Fr. Z's live streamed Low Masses from a makeshift chapel on a cluttered altar in his room I guess. For his private devotion and spirituality and prayer life there is nothing wrong with that.
What I dislike is how fast he recites the Latin EF Low Mass. Not only would most laity who have some working knowledge of Latin not be able to keep up, God Himself can't. How does rattling off prayers as quickly as possible in Latin or the vernacular give God glory, worship, and praise?
If the Mass is deemed too long by some celebrants and for centuries, the only solution to shorten it was by speed reading the Mass in Latin, no Communion to the laity and no chanting of the Mass.
How could we shorten the Mass but maintain its dignity? Let's start with shortening the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar. Let's eliminate the longer Offertory Prayers for something shorter. Let's do away with the separate Communion Rites for the priest and then for the laity (the triple Dominus non sum dignus, for him and then for the laity) . Just have one communion rite for both and just say the Dominus non...once.
Get rid of the placeat and Last Gospel.
But then what happened? We added the interminable Responsorial Psalm with multiple useless repetition of refrains in place of the nobly simple Gradual. Then we added a second reading. We added the interminably long General Intercessions, aka, those boring things and we added the useless presentation of the gifts often in elaborate ways. The gains in removing the PATFOFA in terms of brevity were lost with the reorganization of the Liturgy of the Word, the General Intercessions and the offertory procession.
In addition to that, we lengthened Sunday Mass with an army of unneeded Eucharistic Ministers parading to the altar to assist with Holy Communion, usually more than necessary pandemic producing common chalices. Distributing Holy Communion to a hoard of Extraordinary Ministers takes a lot of time, time we'll never get back.
And then when the Council asked for a more lavish use of Scripture by lengthening the Liturgy of the Word with additional readings, they allowed the Introit, Offertory Antiphon and Communion Antiphon to be substituted with metrical hymns that were not Scripture. Hello?
But then we were given a shorter Eucharistic Prayer in Prayer II. So we could make longer, more repetitive and beyond people's retention of added Scripture the Liturgy of the Word by shortening the centerpiece of the Mass, the Eucharistic Prayer. And even that in the vernacular is rattled off in at a quick pace.
The good thing about the more lavish recovery of the EF Mass is that we can see what needs to be reformed in both it and the OF Mass! How brilliant is that!
So, here goes once again, my reform of the Tridentine Mass based on the reform in continuity of the OF Mass which cannot be erased but used as a springboard toward what SC actually envisioned, in my most humble and holy opinion:
1. Latin is mandated for the Introit, Gloria, Credo, Offertory antiphon, Sanctus, Agnus Dei,, Communion Antiphon and the vernacular for the other parts as an option.
The Order of Mass:
Introductory Rite:
Introit
At the Foot of the altar:
Opening sentence:Priest: I will go to the altar of God. Response: The God of my youth.
Sign of the Cross
Confiteor
Absolution
(priest ascends to the altar and remains at center for Kyrie and Gloria)
Kyrie (always in Greek and nine fold)
Gloria
Greeting (facing the congregation)
Collect (at Epistle side of altar)
Liturgy of the Word (at ambo)
First Reading
Gradual
Gospel Acclamation/tract
Gospel
Homily
The Liturgy of the Eucharist
Credo (at center of altar)
Offertory
Roman Canon for Sunday, Canon II as option for weekday, no other canons
eliminate mystery of faith and incorporate into Roman Canon as in EF and integrate into Canon II
Doxology and Great Amen as in OF
The Rite of Holy Communion:
Pater Noster
additional prayers as in OF Mass
Fraction Rite
Agnus Dei
Dominus non sum dignus (three times)
Communion of priest and then laity
Communion Antiphon
The Concluding Rite:
Prayer after Holy Communion at altar's Epistle side
Placeat at center of altar
Blessing
dismissal
The Mass is ad orientem. Communion is distributed at the altar railing to kneeling communicants.
15 comments:
Father McDonald,
My experience of the Mass before Vatican Disaster II was not at all the way you described it. The norm at my parish was a sung high Mass, a Missa Cantata. There was nothing rushed about it. Our congregation was taught to chant, in Latin, the parts of the Mass proper to them, as Sacrosanctum Concilium later required. Our school day Mass was also a Missa Cantata. Perhaps that is why by the time I was 10 years old, I could chant 5 Latin ordinaries by heart and developed a deep love for Gregorian Chant.
I don't doubt that in some places the Low Mass was celebrated as you described, but it was not a universal norm. I would go to my grandmothers' parishes on vacation where the Low Mass was more common. Nothing rushed about them either. In those parishes the Mass was a Missa Recitiva done very reverently. These Masses took less time but when you do not have music in the mix, the Mass would take less time, no?
When so many Catholics have no knowledge of the pre-Vatican Disaster II state of the liturgy, what's the point in drudging up what some here would call "anecdotal" evidence? It certainly does not make the present state of affairs better. I think a better approach would be to compare the substance of the two Ordos, Church Music Legislation and go from there, which I think is was you are doing anyway.
Fr. McDonald, check out the Low Mass from Sarasota on LiveMass.net as prayed by Fr, duPre He is very easy to understand and proceeds at a fairly slow pace. As for your observation about ‘abuses’ associated with the Old Form; were they problems with the Old Form or were they problems with the men that payed that Mass? If anything is true about the Old Form it is that errors were easy to spot due to its structure. Whether that is rigidity depends on the person and and what sort of abuse he wants to perform.
I don't think it's true that priests sped through low masses to finish more quickly. What I've found is that some priests say mass more quickly than others, and usually, the quickness of their Latin speech matches the quickness of their usual speech.
What is worse, in my opinion, is when priests put on slowness as an affect, which invariably comes off as pompous and false. There is no particular speed in which the mass should be said. If a priest says it artificially slowly to appear more pious (or for whatever reason), that is distracting. Priests should say mass at the speed at which they are comfortable.
I've served quite a few private masses, and the only ones that even came close to being only 15 minutes were low requiems where I, as server, was not communing. Those are faster since many prayers are omitted.
The 'twelve minute Mass' is something of an urban myth. Certainly skim-reading of the prayers would have been a serious abuse since the words have to be articulated even if inaudibly. Also, in the introductory rite the priest has to wait for the server to respond before he can continue. Some short-cuts may have been made (for example beginning the Secret before the server has said the Suscipiat) but these were contrary to the rubrics and deprecated.
The idea that the Epistle and Gospel are 'proclaimed' does not apply to the Low Mass. They are read, and since all priests were familiar with the Vulgate, they were read at a brisk pace. On Sundays they would have been repeated in the vernacular, and those who attended weekday Masses would have followed in a daily missal. Since the Leonine prayers were obligatory, even without any lay communicants the Mass would have lasted from 20 to 25 minutes.
Early morning Masses were said for the benefit of men on their way to work. They would not have had time to listen to lay readers portentously proclaiming the lessons, or the introductions, explanations, intercessions, homilies and mini-homilies which serve to pad out the Novus Ordo.
The tendency since the mid-20th century has been to shorten the liturgical elements in the rite and to lengthen the non-liturgical ones. Compare the Palm Sunday liturgy pre-1955 with the truncated version which replaced it. And to sing the Easter vigil with its twelve prophecies (reduced in 1955 to four) takes about four hours.
By the way, the photograph which purports to be the 'EF' actually shows the 1965 interim rite.
More boring things?
Mike
Anonymous Mike
Someone asked Oscar Wilde 'Are you ever bored, Oscar?' only to receive the reply 'I cannot be bored when I am present.'
And talking of interim rites, what Fr Allan is putting forward as a reform of the Tridentine Mass is more or less the interim rite of 1967 which was intended as a 'dry run' for the Novus Ordo or 'missa normativa' which was celebrated that year by Bugnini in the Sistine Chapel (the assembled bishops gave it a mixed reception).
No-one who has any regard for the traditional Roman Rite would want to go back to the period 1964-1970, which was marked by seemingly arbitrary innovation, instability and confusion. For all its faults, the Missal of Paul VI, now in its third edition, has proved more durable than its compilers expected. Bugnini gave it twenty years at the most, and there are still progressive liturgists who dream of a 'permanent revolution' on the Maoist model.
Father McDonald,
Here are the statistics from the Chartres Pilgrimage from 2019. I wonder if you know some high ranking cleric or individual would could get this information to the proper Vatican authorities, in light of their Summorum Pontificum questionnaire?
17 000 pilgrims in 2019
More than 15% are international pilgrims (and a lot from the US)
50% of pilgrims are under 20 years old [Very telling!]
Only the Mass in the Extraordinary Form during the 3 days of pilgrimage
More than 300 clerics,…
I would hope the Vatican would recognize that the EF means more than they may think, particularly if they are interested in re-evangelizing the Church and appeal to the young.
The double-knit dinosaurs have run things for over 50 years, badly. It is time for them to move aside and let the young to take over!
John Nolan,
Did Bugnini envision an even more vapid rite after 20 years?
I can't comment on the 'speed' of Masses pre-Vatican II (I was just a baby then), but what I notice today is that priests who are more fluent in Latin speak more fluidly (and that means more quickly). I can think of a couple priests who are quite new to the Latin Mass, who perhaps offer it only occasionally; they stumble through the prayers, trip over words, and definitely speak more slowly. That's not a criticism, merely what you'd expect from someone who's not fluent in a language--like when I try to speak German. The SSPX priests I've seen are much more comfortable with speaking Latin--maybe the actually speak Latin in seminary; not sure about that.
The other point to remember is that the prayers are directed to God. In the Novus Ordo the priest often (usually?) behaves as if the Mass is a performance and the people are his audience. The prayers are spoken accordingly.
Longer doesn't mean more reverent. That's why I absolutely agree that an OF re-engineered along Fr McD's suggestions would be better--there's far too many readings packed into the 'Liturgy of the Word'. The Mass is not a Bible lesson.
Incidentally, how many parish priests realise that the GIRM says they can replace the Responsorial Psalm with the Gradual (which is in the Graduale Romanum/Simplex, not the Missale Romanum itself)? I've never heard that in 50 years of Novus Ordo. A couple of psalm verses in measured, unhurried Gregorian chant (in English or Latin) would be a far better experience than the Marco-Polo (you remember that pool game?) style of the Responsorial Psalm.
TJM
The clue is in the final paragraph of 'Comme le prévoit', the instruction issued in 1969 by the Consilium giving norms for translation. It's a semi-official document, has no definitive Latin text, and is not printed in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.
'Texts translated from another language [i.e. Latin] are clearly not sufficient for the celebration of a fully renewed liturgy. The creation of new texts will be necessary.'
The original translations approved by ICEL used the principle of 'dymamic equivalence' advocated by CLP, and there was some adaptation, but no newly composed texts. In 1998 they produced a Sacramentary which, among other things, gave alternative Collects and even an alternative Exsultet in twee English verse.
It was summarily rejected by the Holy See. I get the impression that by the time Bugnini was removed Rome and Paul VI had decided that the proposed next stage in the revolution was a reform too far.
John Nolan,
Thanks for the explanation. Paul VI chose badly when he put Bugnini in charge in the first place but at least he ended the madness. As I recall, Bugnini was banished to Iran, kind of fitting because his power mad and heavy handed approach to reforming the Mass was not too different from the power mad and heavy handed approach to religion of the Ayatollahs.
Hate to admit it, but I was alive and kicking prior to 1964 and can truthfully tell you that Holy Mass was never a 15 minute affair. Some were indeed hurried along; but parishes in those days had 3 or more Masses on Sunday MORNING (pm Masses were very, very rare). Weekdays were, as someone has already pointed out, for the benefit of people on their way to work. I will end here by saying that having to attend the new form of Mass for the past 50 or so years has been a white martyrdom.
Dear Father McDonald, I was an altar boy in the late 1940s. Mass was not rushed and Sunday Mass was packed. The Church had authority and was a respected spiritual and moral leader. Talking in the church was noticeable with the NO. I said to one parishioner, 'this is God's house' and the reply was, 'no, this is our house'. 'Lex orandi, lex credenti'. Since then I have attended EF Masses with the FSSP and SSPX fraternities which also provide adequate time for confession. Yours Faithfully Neville Norwood
As it happens I wrote this elsewhere 2 days ago :-
Between being instructed, at 11, in the structure and rubrics of the Mass, and 1963, I participated in about 1500 celebrations, about 600 as server at weekday Low Mass at a side altar in Ealing Abbey. What was very noticeable was the variation among monks. Some rattled through faster than I could speed read, one stood out for his care and deliberation. Years later the obituary of the latter said "for him the Mass was the still point of a turning world", and I thought ¡exactly!
Post a Comment