Sunday, March 1, 2015



Anonymous said...

Please let us know how many attend.

John Nolan said...

Sang it this morning; Introit, Gradual and Offertory aren't difficult and we psalm-toned the Tract. Communion antiphon is not as straightforward as one might expect.

Yesterday, for the first time in my life, I attended an Ember Saturday Solemn Mass. The five OT lessons were sung in the correct tone by the lectors, followed by the orations (Collects) with Flectamus Genua/Levate and the last, Daniel 3, followed by the great hymn/canticle Benedictus es.

The venue was the shrine of Our Lady of Caversham, an important pilgrimage centre in pre-Reformation England which was despoiled in the reign of Henry VIII.

The Ember days suffered a similar despoliation at the hands of the post-V2 reformers, despite the fact that they, and the liturgy which accompanied them, date from the first millennium. Most Catholics before V2 would no doubt have missed them, since they only attended Mass on Sundays and HDOs, but this hardly justifies their abolition.

Fortunately, they remain as part of the Roman Rite since that was never abrogated, nor could it have been. The Novus Ordo may be normative, and if celebrated according to the rubrics is certainly valid, but, and listen to this carefully - it did not supplant any of the older rites and uses of the western Church, any more than did the 1570 Missal of St Pius V.

I am quite happy that the Novus Ordo is allowed to be celebrated alongside the Roman Rite; there are some good things in it, and many people relate to it (and to the vernacular, although there was no great demand on the part of the laity for a vernacular liturgy).

But there are elements in the Roman Rite which might be meaningful to those who have only known the Novus Ordo, and this is becoming more and more evident.

To someone of my generation it is understandable that if I can attend Mass in the manner in which I was catechized and which I served as a very young boy I have the feeling I have come round full circle. But most of the people I see at traditional Masses have no prior experience and are pushing out into the deep.

The twenty-somethings to whom I frequently speak have often rebelled against their parents' post-V2 assumptions and find in the older Rite something they can relate to.

John said...

Wish I were there.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

"I am quite happy that the Novus Ordo is allowed to be celebrated alongside the Roman Rite;..."

But the Novus Ordo is, as you state, the normative form of the Roman Rite. It is not as if the Novus Ordo stands alone or apart from the Roman Rite.

As Pope Benedict has said, the Novus Ordo and the Extraordinary Form are both the "Roman Rite."

rcg said...

Firstly, FrAJM, kudos to you, your servers, and your deacon for your study and hard work to make this happen. Secondly, John Nolan is certainly correct about the impact the older Rite has on its own without explanation. It draws you in by the heart.

Anonymous said...

Please tell us, too, that we can expect photos!

Anonymous said...

It was such a beautiful Mass! My husband and I were there and are now on I-75 driving back to Atlanta.

I have always been faithful to the church and the Novus Ordo, but nothing can replace the "Mass of the Ages".
Being in my mid 60's I too feel as if I have come around full circle, at the same time it was so encouraging to see the young families there.

Thank you Father McDonald for making this possible!


John Nolan said...

Fr Kavanaugh

The sentence beginning 'I am quite happy ...' was of course tongue-in-cheek. It was meant as a dig at those who think that the old Rite only exists on sufferance. When Summorum Pontificum appeared in 2007 it was those who (for reasons of their own) didn't want the old Rite to be celebrated who maintained that there is no precedent for having two Forms of a single rite.

They were right, of course, but the logic of their argument could only lead to the conclusion that there are indeed two distinct rites. Benedict himself had earlier used an analogy and quite an apt one; if you demolish a building and erect another one on the same foundations it is a different building. It may serve a similar purpose to the previous one; it may replicate elements of the previous one in its design; it may even be regarded by its architects as being more fit for purpose than the one it replaced. This is surely what the reformers thought they were doing, as evidenced by the observation by one of them, Joseph Gelineau, in 1967: 'Make no mistake, the Roman Rite as we know it is no more - it has been destroyed'.

He spoke too soon, of course. By pointing out that the same Roman Rite was never abrogated and should henceforth be given parity of esteem with the Novus Ordo, Benedict was tacitly admitting the existence of two rites. He could have referred to them as the Classic Roman Rite and the Reformed Roman Rite (it's accurate but I can see why he didn't) and I suspect the terms EF and OF will not last - Pope Francis has referred to the former as the Vetus Ordo and Cardinal Castrillon on a visit to London in 2008 referred to it as the Gregorian Mass.