YOU CAN READ MY 12/12 UPDATE OF "THE REFORM OF THE REFORM OF THE ORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS IN CONTINUITY" BY PRESSING THIS SENTENCE. IT NOW INCLUDES A PENITENTIAL PRELUDE AT THE FOOT OF THE ALTAR, WHICH HAS TWO OPTIONS, EITHER THE ASPERGES OR THE PRAYERS AT THE FOOT OF THE ALTAR. THE ACTUAL MASS BEGINS FOLLOWING THE PENITENTIAL PRELUDE AT THE FOOT OF THE ALTAR, WITH THE SINGING OR SAYING OF THE INTROIT. I'VE ALSO REVERTED TO THE ORDINARY FORM'S CONFITEOR, PLACED THE KISS OF PEACE AFTER THE UNIVERSAL PRAYER AND COMBINED THE COMMUNION RITE OF THE PRIEST AND LAITY IN A MARVELOUSLY WONDERFUL REFORM OF THE REFORM BUT WITHIN CONTINUITY OF THE ORDINARY FORM OF THE MASS..
This EF in Sweden! The EF Mass will remain as the Ordinary Extraordinary Form of the Mass and will be the primary way that Latin is maintained and will be required in every parish that has more than two Sunday Masses or can be the Ordinary Form of the Mass for parishes who choose it with the local bishop's approval! HOWEVER, VATICAN II SENSIBILITIES IN TERMS OF THE UNITY OF THE PRIEST AND THE CONGREGATION ARE TO BE APPLIED TO IT AND ACTUAL PARTICIPATION AS UNDERSTOOD IN THE ORDINARY FORM, MEANING THE CONGREGATION TAKES ITS PARTS WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN NORMALLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE ALTAR SERVERS AND/OR CHOIR.
"ACTUAL PARTICIPATION AS UNDERSTOOD IN THE ORDINARY FORM, MEANING THE CONGREGATION TAKES ITS PARTS WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN NORMALLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE ALTAR SERVERS AND/OR CHOIR."
The meaning of this sentence is unclear--whether applied to OF or EF. For instance, in some of Pope Benedict's OF Masses in Rome, the Ordinary of the Mass is sung by the choir alone in a polyphonic or orchestral setting in which the people would not be expected to join. Also, the proper antiphons--introit, offertory, communion, gradual (if any)-are always (either EF or OF) chanted by a schola in specified Gregorian chants that the people would never join.
Really, Father McDonald, if you are to be the Church's clairvoyant liturgist, you move on and get past your progressive Novus Ordo seminary indoctrination, and quit trying incessantly to micromanage the way the people participate in the liturgy. It's their own business, not yours (however hard this is for an ingrained clericalist to accept).
Sorry Father... you just lost me as a supporter. I prefer including the intercession of Michael, John the baptist and Peter and Paul in the Confiteor. I also have no love for the "kiss of peace" (ie, turn to your neighbor, shake hands and, express how much of a hippie you are). I prefer that would just be dropped altogether.
"Really, Father McDonald, if you are to be the Church's clairvoyant liturgist, you move on and get past your progressive Novus Ordo seminary indoctrination, and quit trying incessantly to micromanage the way the people participate in the liturgy. It's their own business, not yours (however hard this is for an ingrained clericalist to accept)."
Hear, hear! This is an important concept which cannot be overlooked. The priest has a role to fulfill in the celebration of Holy Mass. The faithful have a role to fulfill in the celebration of Holy Mass. They are joined insofar as they are both present, but they are separate in action.
The priest acts in a certain way with his ministers as he offers the sacrifice on behalf of the faithful and the faithful act in a certain way while assisting/hearing Holy Mass. Those actions are mutually exclusive.
There is a theological reason for a communion rail as well as a practical one. Just as there was a curtain and doorways into the Holy of Holies, the Communion rail and it's doors are a separation of action. The priest offers and his ministers support the Holy Mass, through their outward (and inward, hence the conjoining of the sanctuary and the nave) action. The faithful worship and adore the fruit of that action.
The role of the faithful is not to be burdened with the activa, but rather to embrace the actuosa, internally and personally and allow the activa to flow naturally. That is why the priest has his ministers. Their burden is the activa, but then again, they should be trained to handle that burden, spiritually, so as to properly meld the activa and actuosa. To be a minister at the altar is a charism, not a right.
This is yet another issue with the faulty liturgical theology which emerged after the Council. Prior to this, it was understood, innately.
This is 2012 and the vast majority of Catholics like participating with their voices and do not like not being able to do so either by music that is too complicated or a language that they have a difficult time particpating. So, if you want to get as many people of this type aboard the reform of the reform, I would hope that those who are more into a passive form of actual participation would recognize that this is a new day and age and that you guys need to be pontiffs, that is, bridge builders to the reform of the reform or even to the EF Mass and enable people to participate in it as they are now in the Ordinary Form and in my parish, the vast majority of people are participating with their sung and spoken responses and robustly so.
We don't need straw men here, or straw liturgists.
There is no straw man theory going on here.
What we are espousing is very real and can stand on it's own. We are also not looking to set the Novus Ordo up so that we can knock it down. It falls down all on it's own.
Yes, Father, it is 2012, but the Truth of liturgical theology is as true today as it was in 1962, as it was in 1862, as it was in AD62. The reality is that unless you believe there was a distinct break at the time of the Council, in which there was a new theology with regard to the liturgy formed which replaced the older, then the theological views we put forth are as valid today as they were in years gone by. Now, if you do believe there is a new theology which replaced the old, then the argument of PP. Benedict XVI is valid, concerning the hermeneutic of discontinuity. And that hermeneutic must be combated, because it has no place in Catholic thought.
Because I do believe it was lost in the postings of the attached thread, I will repost here. It is as valid here as it is in the attachment.
A point of inquiry to Fr. McDonald.
What is the exact reasoning for a revised Mass? What about the TLM is deficient enough to warrant a reform, now that it has been restored?
We argue the revision of the Novus Ordo (and rightly so), but since the TLM has been restored, why does it warrant any revision?
In short, what is wrong with the TLM as the normative form?
Agreed, that straw man arguments are unneeded here--such as the suggestion that participation is an EF versus OF or reform vs non-reform issue. In the EF Masses I attend, for instance, the majority of people participate in chanting at least some of the ordinary and the responses, more so than at most OF Masses. Whereas I occasionally attend an OF Mass where few join in singing the hymns, it's been a long time since I attended an EF Mass with a simple ordinary like the Missa de Angelis when the people did not join in.
On the other hand, when Pope Benedict has polyphonic or orchestral OF Masses in St. Peter's, I doubt his intention is for people to be "passive" in their participation. Not when he himself has argued that receptive and reflective participation can be more active and meaningful than rote vocal participation. For instance, at the usual Sunday EF Mass I join with others in chanting the Gloria, Credo, etc, but I am looking forward keenly to our Mass of the Nativity, for which a polyphonic Ordinary has been announced, which will give me an opportunity for a deeper level of participation--listening receptively--than when I myself am chanting virtually by reflex.
So, yes, we can surely do without any straw man suggestion that those who favor deeper and more meaningful participation (than ordinarily seen in most parish Masses) are thereby favoring passivity. No one seriously discussing liturgical participation is advocating passivity. To suggest that they are is a straw man argument.
However, I think the real flaw in these straw man arguments is the implicit Novus Ordo assumption that it's the province of a clerical liturgist to decide how the people can best participate in the liturgy, and micromanage them in so doing. So I tend to feel the priest (if any) who insists that everyone should sing along, and the priest (if any) who insists that they should not, are equally out of bounds.
Andy, I think you and FrAJM are not really talking about the same thing. I think I have been messing around for the last 50 years because I was passive and going along much more than I should have been. I am much more participative now that I have stopped banging my tambourine along with the 'choir'. My TLM parish is starting to have more and more actual vocalisations of the people's parts and singing when appropriate.
I know that the vast majority of Catholics were thrilled with the Vernacular that first came out, not thrilled with other things foisted onto it, especially casualness and folk music. But this is what Cardinal Ratzinger said to Traditionalists in 1997 and I think it still applies: Cardinal Ratzinger said the following in 1998 to traditionalists:
“…Fortunately however, there is also a certain disenchantment with an all too banal rationalism, and with the pragmatism of certain liturgists, whether they be theorists or practitioners, and one can note a return to mystery, to adoration and to the sacred, and to the cosmic and eschatological character of the liturgy, as evidenced in the 1996 “Oxford Declaration on the Liturgy”. On the other hand, it must be admitted that the celebration of the old liturgy had strayed too far into a private individualism, and that communication between priest and people was insufficient. I have great respect for our forefathers who at Low Mass said the “Prayers during Mass” contained in their prayer books, but certainly one cannot consider that as the ideal of liturgical celebration! Perhaps these reductionist forms of celebration are the real reason that the disappearance of the old liturgical books was of no importance in many countries and caused no sorrow. One was never in contact with the liturgy itself. On the other hand, in those places where the Liturgical Movement had created a certain love for the liturgy, where the Movement had anticipated the essential ideas of the Council, such as for example, the prayerful participation of all in the liturgical action, it was those places where there was all the more distress when confronted with a liturgical reform undertaken too hastily and often limited to externals. Where the Liturgical Movement had never existed, the reform initially raised no problems. The problems only appeared in a sporadic fashion, when unchecked creativity caused the sense of the sacred mystery to disappear…
His Holiness hits on an important point, but one that is very nuanced. HH is correct when he says that the the low Mass is not the ideal. Agreed 100%.
The ideal is a Pontifical Mass. The Mass sung by a bishop is the ideal, however, it is not feasable in the world, and it has not been for almost two millenia. The next closest would be a Solemn Mass, followed by a Missa Cantata, and finally low Mass. However, we are speaking about ideals and I do believe that is what HH was getting at, communication is most proper when it is between the bishop and his flock, it is just not feasable.
All of that being said, in most parishes the faithful had access to at least one Sung Mass, whether it be a Missa Cantata or Solemn Mass in most places. So, the incumbency upon the pastor would be to foster that Mass as the principal and the most desirable to assist at, as opposed to low Mass. I am not so naive as to think that the faithful didn't assist at that Mass, due to time issues, certainly they did...but a well said low Mass is still more licit than a poorly sung clown Mass. Agreed?
The point I'm making is that the Holy Father in all of his writings speaks about the ideal, as he should, but it is incumbent upon us who are "in the trenches" to apply it. So, we can continue to discuss the ideal, but in reality, the low Mass, in the smallest parish in the diocese was/is as valid as a Pontifical Mass on Easter Sunday at St. Peter's. And also a reality, the participation of the faithful at that low Mass is as complete as the participation of the faithful at the foot of Peter. This we cannot deny.
It is the liturgical liberals who argue the opposite of what I have just put forth. So, we can quote Papa Ratzinger all day long, but when we do, we must apply it somehow, because he is speaking of the ideal. We must speak of the application, until such time as he mandates an application.
" . . . such as for example, the prayerful participation of all in the liturgical action . . . "
As emphasized long before Cardinal Ratzinger in 1998, for instance, by Pope Pius X in 1903.
But the question remains, whether mere physical or vocal activity contributes to prayerful participation. In my view, the person who concentrates solely on such external activity in liturgy betrays a superficial understanding of interior prayerful participation.
The extent to which a person really values prayerful participation may well be gauged by his reluctance to credit mere physical or vocal activity as such.
I myself am an advocate equally of glorious OF liturgy and glorious EF liturgy, but I do not confuse crowd bustle and noise with glorious liturgy in either form.
I think Cardinal Ratzinger described what happened after the council in the most profound way. When people could vocally participate in the Mass they appreiciate the new Mass becaue they couldn't or did not participate in the older Mass that way. However, those countries where the Liturgical Renewal happened prior to the Council and there was vocal participation, they resented the more banal reform.
I can speak of my own parish recollection of the changes that the vast majority of the parish liked being able to sing, speak and participate in the revised EF Mass of 1965 and embraced it enthusiastically. What they didn't like was the subsequent dumbing down of the EF Mass into the 1970 missal and the folk music and casual atmosphere, the moving of the tabernacle and the stripping of the churches.
FrAJM, this is where I think Andy is right. As a human behaviour issue you should not ask someone to speak unless you want them to think they have something to say. I can't say if the '65 was the right split between the two forms, but somehow people got the idea they were all demi-priests and theologians, raising their hands and tweaking responses to be more 'inclusive' (especially of themselves.
Today in confession I said that I knew better and was stronger than that. The priest cut me off, "No you are not. Without God, you are nothing." I wish we had heard that more often the last few years. Ex Hubris.
Fr. McDonald, while my recollection of 1965 corresponds pretty well with yours, I don't think this history is particularly relevant now.
When I suspect that many a bishop--right now, today--might find the ideal of real participation in the action of the liturgy more fully realized at his local EF Mass than in many or most of his ordinary OF parishes.
So it's the framing of this as an EF vs. OF issue that I think wrong.
"When people could vocally participate in the Mass they appreiciate the new Mass becaue they couldn't or did not participate in the older Mass that way."
This is unquantifiable. Also, I would argue that it is a false notion, because if what you say is true, why are churches far emptier than they were prior to the liturgical changes enacted after the Council? AND... why is the fastest growing segment of Catholicism today, the TLM?
I take issue with the premise that they appreciate the "new" Mass, I would argue that with the loss of mystery, the faithful started to lose faith. I think that in a certain mystigogical sense, the faithful stopped learning because the mystery was gone. When they stopped learning, well...they stopped showing up.
I am trying to understand Andy Milam's point about the difference between the role of the assembled faithful and the role of the ordained priest celebrant, since superficially it seems contrary to my own view that the faithful join in the sacrifice by virtue of their baptism, their presence, and normally/"best" by their full-souled assent to and joining in (inwardly or vocally, as rubrical/appropriate) the prayers of the priest celebrant. So, in particular, how does Andy Milam interpret the words "meum AC (? ET?) VESTRUM sacrificium"? Ancil Payne
If we look at what is being said in the Orate fratres, we clearly see that this is the close of the first part of the Mass. Remember there are three components to the Mass, the Offertory, the Consecration and the Communion.
When looking at the offering, the priest offers the gifts on our behalf. The whole of the offertory (actually, the whole of the Mass) the priest is acting in our stead. He offers the immolation on our behalf. So, it is quite proper for him to say, Orate, fratres, ut meum ac vestrum sacrificium acceptabile fiat apud Deum Patrem omnipotentem.
To which we respond, Suscípiat Dóminus sacrifícium de mánibus tuis ad laudem et glóriam nóminis sui, ad utilitátem quoque nostram, totiúsque Ecclésiæ suæ sanctæ.
By this response or assent, the faithful are actually assisting at Holy Mass. However, that assistance is first done inwardly and expressed outwardly by our worship, as the priest offers the sacrfice for you and for me.
So, we find the answer in our response. The priest offers the immolation on our behalf, and we assent to it by the work of his hands.
Post a Comment