Wednesday, June 13, 2018

I AM IN FAVOR OF LITURGICAL UNITY AND OPEN-MINDEDNESS, SO LET ME BANG THIS DRUM AGAIN--LET'S ALSO HAVE THE 1965 ROMAN MISSAL AS A LEGITIMATE OPTION FOR PARISHES AND LET'S MAKE SURE THE ORDINARY FORM HAS THE OPTIONS THAT THE GLORIOUS ORDINARIATE'S MISSAL HAS, WHICH IS A REFORM OF THE REFORM OF THE 1970 MISSAL IN TERMS OF OPTIONS--HECK LET'S HAVE IT FREELY CELEBRATED AS AN OPTION TO THE 1970'S REVISED ROMAN MISSAL

1965 Roman Missal:
Divine Worship: The Missal:



Jonathan Day at Praytell has an interesting post with even more interesting comments. He is, of course, opposed to the  EF Mass but he attends a church in London that provides an all Latin Ordinary Form Mass which he likes, I guess because of its ecclessiology, which like the liturgy, we can make into a false god if our Catholic Faith doesn't prevail within us.

You can read the whole post by pressing the excerpt I post below:

When did the rupture first take place?


Some liturgical commentators who once called for pluralism and ‘reform of the reform’ have hardened their views. Where they once held that Summorum Pontificum established two legitimate and equal forms of the Roman Rite, and that mutual (two-way) enrichment of the two forms was possible, the most ardent ‘traditionalists’ – and they proudly own that label — now believe that the only effective ‘reform of the reform’ would be the abolition of what is now called the Ordinary Form, and its replacement by some version of the older Mass.

My comments:

There are some of "the most ardent 'traditionalists'" who are apoplectic that Robert Cardinal Sarah allowed the Solemn High EF Mass His Eminence celebrated to have a "Liturgy of the Word" facing the congregation, at the ambo and in French. I complained that the French wasn't chanted and that was a problem but not the French itself. Many disagreed with me.

Thus, I have a better proposal to get more people to experience the EF Mass and that is to allow the 1965 Roman Missal as a legitimate option.  It would be celebrated exactly as an EF Mass, but with the allowance of the vernacular that is in this Roman Missal.

But Latin would still be preserved for all the priest's quiet parts including the soft-voice Roman Canon with all its EF rubrics.

The lectionary would be the EF lectionary with Latin or English, at the altar or ambo.

In addition to this progressive permission, I would also say that every English speaking parish in the world be allowed to use the Ordinariate's "Divine Worship, the Missal."

Of course the current OF Missal would be allowed in the interim and the 1962 Roman Missal in perpetuity for the boutique "most ardent 'traditionalists'". 

So there!

18 comments:

Marc said...

I think the most ardent traditionalists want a return to the pre-1955 missal, actually. And the trend seems to be in that direction, thank God!

The pre-1955 missal contains the last expression of the fullness of the Roman Rite's brilliance as manifested in its rubrics and calendar. The advent of the pre-1955 Holy Week in many apostolates this year made this apparent to all with eyes to see.

rcg said...

That would work, Fr AJM. Why do we want or need two forms of the Mass?

Henry said...

The 1965 "interim missal"--which when it first appeared was announced as the final product of Vatican II; even prominent bishops were unaware then that a secret commission was still tinkering mischievously--is a non-starter for serious traditionalists, for whom the 1962 missal is already (as Marc suggests) a step down the slippery slope.

However, I recall the 1965 interim as a brief period of seemingly rather harmless excitement before the smoke of Satan overwhelmed us. Many, who were too naive then to anticipate that the vernacular as a wedge would rapidly render Catholic worship unrecognizable to devoted Catholics, initially found some limited vernacular in moderation to be somewhat refreshing.

Msgr. Charles Pope (one of the EWTN commentators for the recent solemn pontifical Mass telecast) has discussed has outlined how an "actual Mass of Vatican II" a la 1965 would look:

http://blog.adw.org/2015/01/a-look-at-the-actual-mass-of-vatican-ii-the-1965-missal/
"I don’t think a person from the year 1900, or even 1700, walking into Mass in 1966 would have been all that shocked. He would notice differences and hear less Latin, but the Mass would still be recognizable."

Incidentally, the 1965 missal is available online:

http://www.ccwatershed.org/blog/2013/nov/15/1965-missale-romanum-online/

John Nolan said...

I simply cannot understand those who hanker after the '1965 Missal'. For a start, it was never intended to be normative, and was replaced two years later by a rite which was in effect a dry run for the Novus Ordo. It is at best a bastardized form of the Roman Rite.

I can't speak for the United States or France, but I can tell you that in England there was no popular demand for a vernacular liturgy - after all the CofE had one, and it was quite a dignified one in those days.

To describe the classic Roman Rite as a 'boutique' Mass is unbelievably ignorant and patronizing. I give all credit to Fr McDonald for celebrating the so-called EF Mass, but if he is constantly looking over his shoulder and thinking 'Gee, I wish I could say such and such a prayer in the American vernacular' he would be better advised to stick to the Novus Ordo and deliver it, flawed as it is, in the most reverent way possible.



TJM said...

John Nolan, Amen. No priest of the Latin Rite need defend the EF. Brand X definitely needs defending, since it is the Rite in place while the Churches we’re emptying out, notwithstanding what the clergy in denial are saying.

Anonymous said...

Oh, my, Fr. McDonald... You are now ignorant and patronizing.

Can it be long before you join the ranks of the philistines?

John Nolan said...

It is not inconceivable that someone born in 1900 would have walked into a Mass in 1966 - he would have been about the age I am now.

He would have noticed that the priest faced the people over the altar, that lay people read the Epistle, Gradual and Alleluia in the vernacular, that the people's Ordinary is also in the vernacular and set to 'modern' tunes, and that hymns had replaced the Propers. In my parish these included 'Michael row the boat ashore' and 'Kumbaya'.

However, if St Francis of Assisi had attended a Mass a mere two years earlier he would have found it reassuringly familiar.

Charles Pope is talking nonsense. Evelyn Waugh died in 1966. His Requiem Mass was in Westminster Cathedral. His son Auberon recalled that the cathedral authorities fought tooth and nail to prevent its being in the traditional form. Eventually they relented. The archbishop at the time was Cardinal Heenan, who knew Waugh personally and was liturgically a conservative. It seems that there was considerable pressure put on the bishops from above to 'get with the program'.

This no longer applies. The last thing we want is a return to the 1960s.

Erementice said...

"He would have noticed that the priest faced the people over the altar, that lay people read the Epistle, Gradual and Alleluia in the vernacular, that the people's Ordinary is also in the vernacular and set to 'modern' tunes, and that hymns had replaced the Propers."

And, since he was not a Catholic traditionalist, he would have said, "Goodness, much has changed. Let's see how all this goes." "Hmmm," he said, "I can understand the prayers of the priest and I like what he is saying. It helps me to pray more deeply the mysteries we celebrate in symbol."

And, "I never knew that Fr. Heenan, who I knew from St. Francis of Assisi in Halstead, was such a fine preacher. His homilies are encouraging, challenging, uplifting, and sometimes extraordinary!"

Also, "Well, I never knew how deep and rich the words of the Canon of the Mass really are. Now that I can hear them prayed and can join in, adding my sacrifices to that of the One Sacrifice of the altar, I am so grateful for what has been done in these last 60 years."

"And thank you, Lord, that we don't have to listen to that perfectly dreadful "choir" any longer. If I was forced to hear Mrs. MacCaa, Mrs. Sallow, Mrs. Berrycloth, Mrs. Edevane, and that pompous Mr. Bytherseashore, for one more high Mass I might have popped my own clogs!"

"I thank you, Lord, that I was never given to think that the Mass was mine, that it was about my personal prayer, or my relationship with Jesus and His Church. I thank you, Lord, that the reformed Mass has given me the opportunity to participate fully, consciously, and actively."

Henry said...

Erementice,

In 1966 I was a member of a parish in a small university town that proudly thought itself to be the most progressive one in our diocese. Our archbishop was the American member of the Bugnini commission, so we got to try out first all the proposed innovations on an experimental basis. It probably wasn't true, but we thought we were the first parish anywhere abandon the altar rail for communion while standing.

Naturally, these things were discussed ad infinitum among parish members. Every parish gathering was dominated by liturgical discussion.

Opinions varied widely, but I don't recall any remarks resembling those you cite, which sound like they were composed by a so-called "liturgist" out of touch with ordinary pew Catholics.

Admittedly, there were those to whom vernacular, but for sure they were the kind of people who mouth things like "It helps me to pray more deeply the mysteries we celebrate in symbol." In other words, they were real people, as opposed to fake people.

John Nolan said...

Erementrice

Sounds like Anonymous-the-Troll under yet another pseudonym. What drivel. For Christ's sake grow up.

John Nolan said...

I am not acquainted with Jonathan Day (he's not on the traditionalist radar) although I understand he attends the Latin OF at the Jesuit church in Farm Street, Mayfair. However, to suggest he is 'opposed' to the 'EF Mass' is a bit strong. I may prefer the Latin rite to the Byzantine but that does not put me in opposition to the latter. I happen to prefer the classic Roman Rite to the Novus Ordo, but that does not mean I oppose the NO; indeed I attend it every five weeks or so at the Oxford Oratory.

You don't 'oppose' legitimate rites unless you are a heretic.

Erementice said...

"Opinions varied widely, but I don't recall any remarks resembling those you cite,..."

So when such remarks may have been made you were either not present or your recollection is faulty.

John Nolan made up the "fake" person who, of course, reacted the way John Nolan wants us to believe he would have acted. Yet he's not chided for creating the fake person. Telling . . .

It is interesting to note that fake people share John Nolan's views. There's a ringing vote of confidence...

I find it fascinating that some people DEMAND that "Anonymous" not be used for posting, yet, when a name is used, they go to spare.

That kind of argument is a damp squib, no?

John Nolan said...

Erementrice

I don't know for certain who you are, but I would like to know who you think is the 'fake' person I have created (apart from Wipo of Mainz, who is an alter ego used as a literary device, and who does not often appear).

You have no kind of argument. You would be utterly destroyed in a proper debating forum such as the Oxford, Cambridge and Durham Union Societies. You are a cretinous troll whose feeble attempts at wit fall flat on its face, since you are not clever enough to carry them off.

It's not easy to categorize individuals based on what they choose to post on the internet; however, from what you write I would be justified in inferring that you are a dishonest and despicable person.

And you will never best me in argument, solang du ein Loch im Arsch hättest.

Henry said...

Erementrice,

"So when such remarks may have been made you were either not present or your recollection is faulty."

On the basis of my experience at the very heart of the liturgical development of the 1960s, personally just a step or two removed from Bugnini's commission, in a parish whose reactions were (we understood) cited in Rome as America's. . . . I meant to suggest that no real pew Catholics anywhere uttered the fake remarks you purported to quote. To be sure, some of us (including me initially) reacted positively to our liturgical experiments, and some negatively, but no one spouted plastic jargon like yours.

And therefore, short of knowing any more about you than what you've written here, I can only assume you yourself to be a fake person trolling fake opinions.

Anonymous said...

Erementrice, you have way too much time on your hands...Time that might be better spent?

Erementice said...

Anonymous worried about my time . . . Et tu?

Anonymous said...

Ermentrice, I’m a 71 y.o. retired medical professional who checks this blog once in a awhile (as in very sporadically)...Et tu?

Jake said...

Interestingly, it was Cardinal Heenan, "a liturgical conservative", who commissioned the Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral featured in this post: https://southernorderspage.blogspot.com/2018/05/just-how-much-does-revision-of.html .