What I like better about the Ordinary Form High Mass
1. There aren’t two “Masses” going on at the same time. I don’t have to say the Introit, Offertory and Communion Antiphons in addition to the choir chanting these. The same for the other sung parts—the choir is sufficient for these parts.
2. The Liturgy of the Word from the ambo—love this and that the priest doesn’t have to read the Scriptures in Latin in addition to the vernacular.
3. Audible Roman Canon
4. Unified Communion Rite—but the celebrant does receive first in order to conclude/ratify the Sacrifice.
5. The Dismissal Rite with the Blessing and Ite Missa Est.
6. Clear rubrics for the laity for standing, kneeling and sitting
What I like better about the EF High Mass:
1. The rubrics for the Roman Canon and the rubrics in general for this Mass
2. The Suscipiat and Placeat
3. Sign of the Cross to bless water for the infusion
4. Double cleansing of the chalice at the ablutions
5. The laity kneeling for the Final Blessing
6. The traditional Confiteor
7. The richer prayers for the priest’s reception of Holy Communion
4 comments:
But you don’t have to read the mass readings in Latin. TC is perfectly clear and requires that according to the Second Vatican Council’s Sacred Constitution on the Liturgy that the reading should be proclaimed in the vernacular in order to facilitate the active participation of the congregation who are the people of God.
Andrew Rex,
Because I am not brain dead, I can read the translations in the vernacular just like I did prior to Vatican Disaster II
Andrew Rex
If you can find anything 'perfectly clear' in TC you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din. It was SP which allowed the epistle and gospel to be read in the vernacular only, but it applied solely to Low Mass and is rarely done. In a sung/High Mass the epistle and gospel are still sung in Latin, even if they are read in the vernacular afterwards. Sacrosanctum Concilium allows for the use of the vernacular but does not mandate it for any part of the Mass.
The term 'people of God' was much bandied about in the wake of the Council, to the irritation of Cardinal Heenan (Westminster) who remarked wryly 'Who are the people not of God?'
For me, the biggest thing is talking to me instead of God. However it is supposed to be done, and whatever the intent and disposition of the celebrant, ad populo keeps me focused on the person facing me and talking, apparently, to me, instead of me following his lead in praying to & speaking with God.
The second biggest thing is in the TLM, I really am lost most of the time. I really really try, very hard, to follow along - but these are so rare (been to fewer than 10) and becoming more rare still (muchas gracias)… I doubt I will ever get e chance to learn it well. I think it is because so much of it is done in silence (from the populo perspective) and the audible parts are in Latin… and much of that audible part is sing in polyphony by a very talented schola… whatever the reasons, I am often lost. I find myself working to situate myself in the mass, instead of praying the parts of the mass. Frustrating. (But still beautiful)
At my parish, congregation singing of one of our few dozen standard songs replaces the introit. I don’t much like that, but what can I do? The songs are kinda cringy. At least from my perspective, they all seem really… effeminate, I guess is the word. Offertory antiphon? Don’t recall noticing one of these. More congregational singing one of standard few dozen happens, though. I try not to cringe over these songs.
The Liturgy of the Word from the pulpit is read by mostly women. How this isn’t teaching… argumentation and definition of terms don’t change the obvious fact of.
Post a Comment