Friday, March 11, 2016


As you know, I think that it is extremely unfair that the new Divine Worship, the Missal has EF options for an Ordinary Form Mass in English and we haven't been told in the general Latin Rite that we can or can't implement these options from this official Latin Rite, Ordinary Form Missal!

What I am suggesting is that in using our current 2002 Roman Missal with it gloriously revised English translation, that it is perfectly licit to use the EF options in English of the other Ordinary Form Missal, Divine Worship for the following:

Introductory Rite

A. Prayers at the Foot of the Altar with the Introit in Divine Worship with its EF format chanted while the priest and ministers pray this quietly or in a spoken Mass the Introit is spoken by priest or all after the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar are spoken in dialogue by all

B. changing the Order of the Greeting to prior to the Collect

The Liturgy of the Word

A. While using the Ordinary Form Lectionary, the options of the Gradual and Tract (during Lent) be allowed in place of the Responsorial Psalm--technically these are but no one seems to know that and there is no convenient place to find the Gradual or Tract apart from the Divine Worship Missal.

B. At funerals the Dies Irae finds place of pride in its traditional position following the Tract

The Liturgy of the Eucharist

A. The Divine Worship's EF Offertory Prayers, incensing prayers and Lavabo be allowed with their English translation

B. The Roman Canon with its Elizabethan English be an option along with its EF-like Rubrics

C. The prayer after the Our Father with its inclusion of Peter and Paul and Andrew

D. The Agnus Dei in Requiem's with the EF, Grant them Rest

E. The Three fold "Lord I am not worthy"

F. Last Gospel

I think to implement these things would be licit and allowed given the fact that one would be implementing what Pope Benedict asked, that the EF inform the OF's celebration of the Mass.

The Church has officially given us and under Pope Francis to boot, this combination and mandated it for use in one part of the Latin Rite's Ordinary Form.

If the bishops of southern California allow made up penitential acts that are ideological, dancers galore and the worst kinds of improvisations which are unofficial and technically forbidden, it only makes sense that a priest could use official translations of the EF Mass in English and implement these into our normal Ordinary Form Mass for the General Latin Rite. Why not, given what is allowed that isn't official???????

I think any priest and parish could implement what I recommend now.

Your thoughts?


TJM said...

you'd be in the Chancery Office by Monday morning for a dressing down. The left-wing loons running the Church are bereaft of logic and decency.

John Nolan said...

Since the Offertory prayers are said secretly, just use the old ones. No translation is required. In any event say the Suscipe Sancta Trinitas between the Lavabo and the Orate Fratres. Say the traditional prayers at the incensation (Benedict XVI set a personal example in this regard). Recite Ps 42 (Judica me Deus) when processing in; recite the Aufer a nobis and Oramus te when venerating the altar at the start of Mass. Say the Placeat either before the blessing or (as recommended in 1967) when processing out.

Those who notice will be sufficiently liturgically aware to approve of it; the majority won't notice anyway.

All the Ordinariate priests I know are familiar with the Tridentine Mass and celebrate it. When using the Ordinariate Missal they are more likely to say the PATFOTA in Latin at a sung Mass. Coverdale's 'even to the God of my joy and gladness' (a tautology) and 'Give sentence with me O God' are jarring to Catholic ears. Those of us brought up with the old Mass were familiar with the English translation printed in our missals, where the Psalms were translations of the Vulgate; 'to God who giveth joy to my youth' and 'Judge me, O God'.

Grant said...

To answer your question, it's called the 1965 Order of the Mass. Just have Cardinal Sarah revise the Novus Ordo Ordinary so that it is identical to the 1965 Ordinary.

John Nolan said...

Grant, you are mistaken. The 1965 interim missal was never intended to be definitive and was the first wrecking ball taken to the Roman Rite which was finally demolished in 1967.

I despise the 1965 rite more than I do the 1970 Novus Ordo which at least is a valid rite sui generis and despite its weaknesses and the abuses to which it is subjected can be taken on its own terms.

Read Inter Oecumenici (1964) and Tres Abhinc Annos (1967) and you will get the point.

Grant said...

John, so then you are opposed to Fr McDonald's proposed revisions to the Novus Ordo, since his revisions would essentially make it the 1965 Order? Do you support, instead, the suppression of the Novus Ordo, and only have the EF, something I would love, but doubt is a realistic goal in the foreseeable future. Revising the Novus Ordo to be identical to the 65 ordinary is the more realistic and do-able compromise.... for now.

John Nolan said...


Fr McDonald's aim is to reform the Novus Ordo by restoring elements that were needlessly jettisoned. The creators of the 1965 interim Ordo were already embarked on the destruction of the Roman Rite and this was a preliminary step. The priest as a 'presider' over a versus populum dialogue is inherent in Inter Oecumenici.

The intention in either case is diametrically opposite. For the record, I would prefer a Latin OF to a vernacular EF (if such a thing were allowed). Indeed, for most of my life a Latin Novus Ordo was the only traditional liturgy available. Only recently has it become relatively easy to find a Sunday Mass in the old Rite.

This is where I part company with Fr McDonald. He sees Latin as an obstacle (although paradoxically he wants it 'mandated' for certain parts of the Mass) whereas I would not wish to attend a vernacular Mass except on an occasional basis. He likes the 1970 lectionary; I think the traditional Roman cycle is infinitely preferable. He presumably uses the new Ritual books; I think they have nothing to recommend them, and as a priest he is within his rights to use the older Rituale Romanum and indeed to pray the older Office.

The Church does not suppress valid and orthodox rites, which is why the Roman Rite was not, and could not be abrogated. The Novus Ordo is an artificial product but is undoubtedly valid and (when celebrated properly) orthodox. Those who prefer the older Rite should not call for the suppression of the newer one. Benedict XVI realized that papal interference with the liturgy was the cause of the problem and therefore cannot be the solution.

Anonymous said...

The unreformed Roman Rite was not abrogated. Celebration of this rite was.

Greg C said...

One thing I am jealous of, is that the Ordinariate Mass gets the traditional Confiteor, while the Latin OF is stuck with an abbreviated, edited Confiteor. Not that it matters, as my parish never prays the Confiteor... we always use one of the other two options that omits the Confiteor. While my parish is doing a 3 minute banal pop-folk production number of the Kyrie, I quietly pray the traditional Confiteor and 9-fold Kyrie.

John Nolan said...

The Roman Confiteor with its invocations is very long compared with other Uses - the Dominican and Sarum versions are much shorter and also include 'omissione' which is in the NO Confiteor. Where Bugnini broke with precedent was in telescoping the priest's Confiteor with that of the ministers. A similar thing happened to the Communion rite as introduced in 1967. Criticism of textual elements of the NO often overlooks the reality of the revolutionary nature of the reform.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

John - Serious question. I often read of the "priest's communion" and the "priest's confiteor." Do we know the origins of these "separate" actions?

Now, I know that communion under both species by the priest is necessary for the completion of the sacrifice. Aside from that element, is there any other substantial "difference" between the priest's communion and the communion of the faithful? I can't think of any.

I suspect that there came a time of realization that the "otherness" of the priest, as it was understood, was something of an impediment to growth in holiness of all the faithful, properly disposed, if that otherness led to his communion as the one that really mattered, as it would have in terms of completing the sacrifice.

With the shift to an ecclesiology of communion which gives greater recognition to the sacrament of Baptism as the foundation of ministry in the Church. But this was not without significant historical precedent. Trent, in Sacra Tridentina, gave us "“The Holy Council wishes indeed that at each Mass the faithful who are present should communicate, not only in spiritual desire, but sacramentally, by the actual reception of the Eucharist.”

What I suspect was happening was a recognition that the separation of the priest's Confiteor and the priest's communion were not the best form for speaking about or practicing these elements of the mass. Although they may have been long-standing practices, the elimination of this apparent duplication as "unnecessary repetition" was and is a good thing.


Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

The priest's communion is still first although in the Ordinary Form there isn't the separate "Lord I am not worthy" but there are unique prayers prior to the priest's Communion and the priest still has the longer "May the Body/Blood of Christ keep me save..." Whereas the laity's version is now truncated.

In the 70's we were told by self serving egotistical liturgists the the Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion should receive HC as con celebrants do, along with the celebrant. Others told us that the priest should receive after everyone else, last.

So your question is born of a complete disregard for the legitimate role of the priest in the Masss without which there would be no Mass. With the EF Mass returned to the Church, many are realizing the heretical ideologies that form some of the basis of liturgical reform and deconstruction. Calling the EF's lofty theology of the ordained priest clericalism is a straw man to promote the laiziation of the priest liturgically, a Protestant heresy.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Um, as one who serves as a priest, I certainly do not disregard the role of the priest in the mass.

I hope John will join in and offer something substantive.

John Nolan said...

Fr Kavanaugh,

I think you are quite correct in your analysis of the thinking which lay behind the change to the Communion Rite. However, I am not convinced that this new 'ecclesiology' has much substance outside the theories of certain avant-garde 20th century theologians. The new Penitential Act is a separate issue; Bouyer expresses surprise that it should have been authored by Josef Jungmann SJ, that pre-eminent historian of the Roman Mass. He puts it down to Jungmann's never having celebrated a Solemn Mass in his entire life!

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

"As confused as a Jesuit at high mass"?

We will disagree on the import of the reformed - actually, re-sourced - ecclesiology. Honestly, I think it is embodied in almost all of the documents of Vatican II, from the style of writing (ars laudandi) to the "nouvelle" vocabulary (People of God, Pilgrim Church, etc).

John Nolan said...

Cardinal Heenan was irritated by the 'nouvelle' language, once asking 'Who are the people NOT of God?' I think a major doctrinal shift requires more than semantics and subjective inferences - and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that no new ecclesiology was promulgated.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

"Promulgated" "This is the act by which the legislative power makes legislative enactments known to the authorities entrusted with their execution and to the subjects bound to observe them."

I'm not sure that any ecclesiology has been "promulgated" if, by the use of that term, one means a solemn declaration as in "The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was promulgated on 8 December 1854."

A change in semantics can, indeed, reflect a significant change in doctrine. It can, at the very least, reflect a change in how people understand doctrine, be it ecclesial or secular.

John Nolan said...

Sorry, I was posting in something of a hurry; 'promulgated' would be better expressed by 'formulated'. The original (1969) GIRM was withdrawn after the 'Ottaviani intervention' and when it was finally issued it contained a preamble making it clear that the understanding of the Mass was the same as that of the Council of Trent. The original preamble (still available for download, but only in Latin) would have reduced it to a protestant communion service.

The rite itself, however, was little altered from the Missa Normativa of 1967, famously trialled in the Sistine Chapel to a decidedly mixed reception from the assembled synod of bishops. The cut-and-paste nature of the Novus Ordo, the haste with which it was conceived, the fact that some of the scholarly assumptions underlying it have since been discredited, the way that sections of it can be directly attributed to identifiable authors, the unscrupulous way that Bugnini overrode the opposition of the Consilium by falsely claiming that 'the Pope wills it'; even before one vectors in the effect of deliberately misleading vernacular 'translations' and the excessive creativity that was positively encouraged in some quarters, it comes over as damaged goods. That is why the SSPX regards it as dangerous to right belief while accepting its validity.

I would not go so far in my criticism of it, but it is undeniable that it is open to a number of different interpretations in a way that the classic Roman Rite emphatically is not. This would include those whose views incline them to accept the concept of a 'nouvelle' ecclesiology as well as those who reject this interpretation.