I love our Ordinary Form Masses in my parish at Saint Anne Church in Richmond Hill. If we were a rich parish with money to spare, the major liturgical change I would make would be adding an altar railing and distributing Holy Communion there to communicants who choose to either stand or kneel.
Otherwise, I see nothing that is opposed to the Catholic Faith or degrading to the Orthodox Sacramental teachings of the Church especially as it concerns the Mass as both a Sacrifice and Sacrificial Banquet.
Of course the most important part of the Mass is the "Dismissal." Go in peace, glorifying the Lord by your life!"
21 comments:
Unfortunately in most parishes the Mass is celebrated in a manner which obviously does not re-inforce the sacred, the Real Presence. Pew Research demonstrates that. It is Mass as a Happy Meal, a Group Hug. Of course, the OF as celebrated at the Brompton Oratory and St. John Cantius DOES reinforce the sacred and the belief in the Real Presence, and no doubt at St. Anne's as well, but these are outliers in a sea of banal and uninspiring.
The problem is that the NO can be celebrated in many ways that not respectful or dignified and is still valid and acceptable. This is what causes many EF supporters to *respectfully* question it.
I have to agree with RCG. So long as the Novus Ordo leaves any room for deviation and improvisation, it remains inherently flawed.
I just came upon this great article:
https://onepeterfive.com/thirty-three-falsehoods-responsa/
One of the best quotes is this 1976 snapshot from then-cardinal Ratzinger:
"The problem of the new Missal lies in its abandonment of a historical process that was always continual, before and after St. Pius V, and in the creation of a completely new book, although it was compiled of old material, the publication of which was accompanied by a prohibition of all that came before it, which, besides, is unheard of in the history of both law and liturgy. And I can say with certainty, based on my knowledge of the conciliar debates and my repeated reading of the speeches made by the Council Fathers, that this does not correspond to the intentions of the Second Vatican Council."
If we are this obsessed with fidelity to the Council, then just about everything we've been doing since 1969 has been an exercise in needless experimentation.
I agree with Thomas and RCG—the way, way too many ways in which the Ordinary Form of the Mass is the problem. That ranges from orientation to language and to music. And music in all its varieties contributes to its malcelebration! So often, vapid music is sung because of its upbeat melody, people can sing it and it sounds cool, but it isn’t appropriate for Mass—but the one making the decision to use a genre of music is the final authority, no one else in that parish. And even though the words are heterodox if people sing it and like it, then it must be used.
Pope Emeritus Benedict say as Cardinal that the new Mass is as different as it can be not only from Mass to Mass in the same parish but from parish to parish. There is no unity in its celebration but fragments the same parish and the other parishes nearby from each other.
Where is it written that the mass must be "the same" from place to place?
Why is it necessary that the mass celebrated in a convent retirement home in Brisbane be the same as a high school holy day mass in Birmingham and a weekday mass at a small rural parish near Boise?
I would say that the sacrifice is the same, whatever direction the priest faces, whatever language is employed, whatever music is sung.
I would further say that the faith of those choosing to participate 9n whichever form is nourished and strengthened by that sacrifice.
The scientist you declare you are needs to back up with statistics your final assertion as it flies in the face of pew research of what Catholics believe about the Mass and Holy Communion. You could poll the 5% to 10% of Catholics in your parish boundaries who actually attend your Masses and determine what they actually believe about Mass and Holy Communion. We will wait for you to get back to us.
But, why not answer my question. Where is it written...?
Father K just made the argument for retaining the EF in his first sentence. That’s progress
Curiously, if your parish was of means, why would the altar rail become superior to improvements to the altar/tabernacle? If the action pouring forth isn't from an elevated place (both in appearance and how it is situated) what good will come from a rail some might just stand before? I'm not suggesting that your current altar is inferior however, we've all agreed that it could be improved giving it the appearance of greater heft and permanence. The tabernacle itself is grand, it's current presentation improved, but, again, it suffers from the same problem, it looks like it is temporarily perched atop a stand that easily could be pushed over (even if it can't be).
When I read Fr. Kavanaugh's question, I too initially thought of Quo Primum, but the more fastidious among us would no doubt that its strictures only apply to the Traditional Mass, so my second inclination is to answer with other questions: Where is it written that we have to have personalized rites for every parish and every special interest group? Where is it written that differentiation in the practice of the Novus Ordo has been good for the Church? (I am sure some of the attorneys who frequent this blog could easily prove just the opposite).
Where is it written that Holy Mass is "ours" to manipulate and tamper with?
When the Mass was the same from place to place in the Western Church, I can only think of that being a beautiful thing.
Quo Primum, being a document of liturgical regulation, is not, and cannot be, eternally binding and forever unalterable.
We're that the case, he would have excommunicated himself when he, in subsequent years, altered the texts used at mass.
There are numerous traditionalist sources available online that explain what Quo Primum is, and, more importantly, what it is not.
(Sigh)
YES, Father. I more or less said that although Quo Primum immediately came to mind, it's application is rather limited, then went on to address the question with some questions of my own. I guess it's more convenient to simply ignore those.
This is really getting old.
(Yawn...) Where is it written the the mass must be "the same" from place to place? It must be convenient to ignore this...
Of course, the more appropriate question is “where is it written that a rhetorical question must be answered?”
But your last point needs a clarification from you:
“I would further say that the faith of those choosing to participate 9n whichever form is nourished and strengthened by that sacrifice.”
In your parish boundaries, where only 5% to 20% actually bother to attend Mass, of that, let’s be generous, and say it is 25%, what survey tool with its results have you used to substantiate your claim that “faith..is nourished and strengthened?”
We do know from pew surveys that an extremely high number of EF Catholics both in the pre-Vatican II Church and Post Vatican II Church actually had their Catholic Faith with all its orthodox teaches, strengthened and nourished. In the post Antecedent Mass, very few believe in the real presence or the Mass as sacrifice. They think it simply a symbol, which or course, an atheist would have to assert. And most don’t believe Jesus is God or that God is all powerful and transcendent and different than mere mortal beings.
Your contention, Fr. ALLAN McDonald, that the mass should be the same everywhere which, by the way, was never the case, is what needs clarification.
Surveys report the answers given to survey takers. Knowing what people believe can be determined most accurately by seeing how they live their lives.
Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...
Where is it written that the mass must be "the same" from place to place?
This raises an interesting question - one where I suppose at the highest level, the answer is no where. Wasn't the missal of Trent, however, designed to eliminate regional variation? That aside, from an Eastern perspective, Divine Liturgy exists as a prayer not to be altered (e.g. no one claims ownership of the liturgy to change on a whim). It is fixed in its requirements however, we do rely on 2 versions of Divine Liturgy that possess subtle differences. Where "from place to place" factors in is with para-liturgical celebrations. These pertain to custom where a particular hymn might be favored etc. They occur outside of Divine Liturgy perhaps prior to the start of Divine Liturgy, or immediately following its conclusion. I believe this occurs within the Roman Church where celebrations/practices occur that are more specific to Slovaks, Mexicans, Vietnamese among the many other groups that add vibrancy through their own tradition and customs (e.g. A Good Friday Tomb, Oplatki wafers for the Christmas Eve Holy Supper, Our Lady of Guadalupe Festivals, Regional Italian or Vietnamese Feasts honoring particular saints. Perhaps, then, what we perceive as a problem here really isn't one after all.
Father K obviously supports liturgical diversity so I will assume, to be intellectally consistent, he has no problem with the EF being celebrated where the Faithful desire the EF.
Howler and non sequitur of the day comes from Fatherh K:
"Knowing what people believe can be determined most accurately by seeing how they live their lives."
So when I answer a survey saying I don't believe in the Real Presence, but if I am kind and generous to others (laudable) that means I believe in the Real Presence?
I just read a piece by Phil Lawler in which he cites the all-too-familiar poll numbers of Real Presence Deniers, the overwhelming number of whom are Novus Ordo Catholics. However, he takes it a bit further to its logical end: If it is the Novus Ordo Catholics who deny they Real Presence, then it is THEY who deny the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass. After all, how could a Mass possibly be "valid" if the priest fails to consecrate the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ? I do not necessarily think that the Novus Ordo is invalid, but how fascinating that it is the majority of Novus Ordo goers THEMSELVES who unwittingly confess their denial of its validity by their opinions about the Real Presence.
Thomas Garrett,
Logic is not the “progressives” strong suit
The Missal promulgated by Pius V in 1570 was not 'designed to eliminate regional variation' since it explicitly did not supplant rites or uses with a provenance of a mere 200 years.
Similarly the Roman Ritual of 1614, while authoritative, did not replace existing ritual books which varied from place to place.
Post a Comment