Saturday, December 23, 2017

CAN THE CURRENT ORDINARY FORM MASS ACTUALLY EMBRACE WHAT VATICAN II TAUGHT, GIVEN THE FACT THAT IT DOESN'T NOW? YES, YES, YES





How can we make Pope Paul VI's Mass actually reflect Vatican II without a complete overhaul of it or a complete restoration of the 1962 Roman Missal--which would be unfaithful to an Ecumenical Council?

It is what I have been saying ever since I have been blogging and before and it is what Fr. Anthony Ruff just wrote yesterday, finally showing even he is coming around:

Apart from what I may think about Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, or the high medieval offertory prayers of the Tridentine missal, or ad orientem, or any number of things, I would be willing to talk about the provision of all sorts of generous options or even requirements if – if – they helped...

Thus there is nothing to change within the Latin template of the 2011 Roman Missal, other than fixing the General Instruction on the Roman Missal and adding an appendix for some important options and mandating some current options:

1. Sacrosanctum Concilium stated that Latin should remain in the Latin Rite Mass and some vernacular allowed. I would recommend that the Propers not be just an option easily replaced with hymns but these be mandated from the Roman Gradual and in Latin--this is an extremely important clarification for the GIRM.

2. Ad Orientem or the Benedictine Altar Arrangement clarified and strengthened in the GIRM.

3. The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, the older version of the Offertory Prayers and rubrics that are closer to the EF Mass as a way to strengthen and add rubrics in an appendix of options which could eventually become required

4. Kneeling for Holy Communion and eliminating Holy Communion received in the hand--this is more important than 1, 2 or 3 above!!!!! It will emphasize the Kingship of Christ as the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity and be a big step toward the recovery of reverence which Vatican II never wanted to eliminate!

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Regarding No 1. SC notes that, " These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, [In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.] to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language."

Citing SC should include the authorization of "competent territorial ecclesiastical authority" to determine the extent of the use of the vernacular.

TJM said...

When will you institute ad orientem at your current parish or are they too many old lefties there (Kavanaughites) nwho will complain to the bishop?

TJM said...

Kavanaugh at 9:53

Have you followed Sacrosanctum Concilium and taught your congregation to sing the parts of the Mass in Latin proper to them?

I would so hate to think that you are being disobedient to the laws of the Council.

ps: the provision you cite envisions that Latin would be the rule, not the exception




















HaVE YOU

John Nolan said...

Firstly, there is no such thing as the '2011 Roman missal'. The Missal in current use for the OF is the Editio Typica Tertia of 2002.

Secondly, the Gregorian Propers from the Graduale Romanum (In, Gr, Al/Tr, Of, Co) are for use when the Mass is sung, and when it is sung in Latin they are usually employed. However, the Missal has different Propers, and in the case of the Responsorial Psalm and 'Gospel acclamation' they are supposed to be sung, and usually in the vernacular. This is what happens in papal liturgies, even those celebrated in Latin.

Furthermore, it takes a highly competent schola, with cantor(s), to sing the Graduale Propers. Very, very few parishes possess these resources, something that was recognized at the time of the Council.

Anonymous @ 9:53 quotes Article 36 §3 of SC, but by taking it out of context gives the erroneous impression that 'competent territorial ecclesiastical authority', by deciding on the 'use and extent' (de usu et modo) of the vernacular, can also determine the 'use and extent' of Latin.

Henry said...

Lest anyone think Fr. Ruff has experienced some kind of epiphany, let's quote his whole sentence:

"Apart from what I may think about Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, or the high medieval offertory prayers of the Tridentine missal, or ad orientem, or any number of things, I would be willing to talk about the provision of all sorts of generous options or even requirements if – if – they helped Summorum Pontificum go away and helped all the sons and daughters of Mother Church reunite around the reformed Roman rite."

To me, sounds like same ole ruff stuff.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Henry, be that as it may, the 1962 Roman Missal celebrations will not end even when the OF is more like it. But when the OF is more like it, there won't be the antipathy of so many toward the EF as there are now and Fr. Anthony will be even more marginalized in his already marginal views on the topic.

However, the EF Mass will never appeal to the majority of Catholics again, but it will appeal to a small group of them worldwide. But having the OF more like it will had to the EF's appreciation.

TJM said...

Father McDonald,

I wouldn't be so sure about your statement. In my lifetime I have seen the utter collapse of Sunday Mass attendence by American Catholics, most of which got far worse AFTER the OF was imposed. The real religious vitality, in terms of vocations and Sunday Mass attendance, seems to be veerng in the direction of the EF, not the OF. The Church is just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic due to its wilful obstinacy to not jettison or radically reform the OF so it is far more like the EF.

Anonymous said...

If one is choosing to use more of the vernacular, is not one, necessarily, choosing to use less Latin?

If I am expected to drink coffee, but am given the option to drink tea, and, exercising that option, I drink one cup of coffee and 8 cups of tea, have I not decreased the coffee consumption?

John Nolan said...

Anonymous/Kavanaugh, you have a knack of stating the obvious while at the same time completely missing the point. 'To decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used' gives the misleading impression that use of the vernacular can be prescribed; something that simply isn't there in the original Latin. Look it up yourself, it's easy enough to understand. Quoting Art.36 §3 out of context exacerbates the error.

Anonymous said...

I agree completely with point 3 and 4. I tend also to agree with 2, though I would make it stronger by mandating ad oriented at least during the Eucharistic prayer. With regard to point 1, I would actually make the propers a place where Latin could be optional, given the high amount of training and practice needed for a schola, or even a single cantor, to pull it off effectively (though I do agree that the propers should not be omitted, at least on Sundays and Holy days). Rather, I think the place to mandate Latin (and Greek) is in the Ordinary, for which simpler chant settings exist and to which people have more regular exposure. Learning to chant the three words of Greek needed for the Kyrie is a matter of a few minutes of practice, and chanting the Sanctus, Pater Noster and Agnus Dei in Latin is within the reach of most people after only a few Masses. More complicated chants like the Gloria and Credo could be done in the vernacular, perhaps with a requirement that they be chanted in Latin on at least Easter and Christmas Day. An additional requirement that any hymns sung be selected primarily (though not necessarily exclusively) from the Breviary, Graduale Romanum or Liber Usualis, and perhaps limiting vernacular translations of hymns to the professional and possibly even the entrance hymn, would also go a long way towards reverence without completely eliminating modern music.

Beyond that, I believe that using the Canon as the only EP on Sundays and Holy days, with maybe some allowances for substitution of EP IV during ordinary time, would help bring back some respect for the Eucharistic sacrifice. EP II, III and the various or prayers for special needs could be employed on weekdays if desired. Of course, Communion on the tongue and elimination or significant reduction of EMHCs would also be needed. Some people would complain at first, but over time all but the most dedicated leftists would give up and just go along with it.

Anonymous said...

For my above post I wrote “recessional”, but it autocorrected to “professional”. Apparently autocorrect favors a more progressive liturgy...

John Nolan said...

Yet, those of us who lived through the vernacularization of the Mass from 1964 onwards recall that the first things put into English were those parts of the Ordinary (Kyrie, Gloria etc) which everybody knew in the original language.

ByzRC said...


2. Ad Orientem or the Benedictine Altar Arrangement clarified and strengthened in the GIRM.

To me, the 'or' clause brings us right back to where we started. Options, the downfall of conformity and uniformity.

Additionally, and to me, this debate will never find an end. It might have been so much easier to simply have adopted the Vernacular translation of the 1962 missal maintaining Latin for the propers and the common parts. Perhaps all of the rebuilding, un-wreckovating, strange new construction with the tabernacle all over the place and 'liturgists' could possibly have been avoided had this happened.