Not that anyone asks my opinion, but one of the things I think is wrong with the Liturgy Wars is that most people seem to start the discussion from their answer to the question: What do I think the liturgy should look like? Yet, the liturgy is not about us, it’s about God. And the Popular Mechanics approach to liturgy which has made everyone an expert in DIY Rites means that anyone who has ever come into contact with the Mass has an opinion. So generally I avoid like the plague pontificating on how I think the liturgy should be celebrated and try to actually live the liturgy instead.
Yet the Vicar of Christ, Pope Benedict XVI, has called for the mutual enrichment of the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Roman Rite and has also suggested that the time has come for a Reform of the Reform of the rites after the Second Vatican Council. He has also reiterated that there should be mutual respect of both forms and no “ritual mixing.” And so many voices are out there calling for a reform of the modern Roman Rite, it’s hard to know what such a reform should look like. There are some who are determined to make sure that the Extraordinary Form never has any influence on the Ordinary Form, and, if they had their way, they would obliterate its memory from the face of the earth in the most radical damnatio memoriae known to human history. For them there is no question of mutual enrichment; rather, they advance a platform of constant liturgical anarchy. Then there are those for whom mutual enrichment sounds like a plot to infect the venerable classical worship of the Church with the theological and spiritual rot that has affected the ephemeral postmodern worship (?) of the new community sung into being.
As a parish priest who habitually celebrates both forms, I am left scratching my head how the two forms are supposed to enrich each other organically if I can’t mix the rites. Pope Benedict XVI has given us a rich teaching on the liturgy as Cardinal Ratzinger, and he has also given the Church quite an example of how to celebrate the liturgy. But I am sure I am not alone in desperately wishing for some more practical guidance as to how exactly this is supposed to done and what I can and cannot do to help bring about the organic restoration of the sacred.
And so I think out loud in this essay and ask for comments. In the final analysis, I wait for the Church’s instructions on how to go about this. But I do wonder if there could not be three possible stages to the Mutual Enrichment and Reform of the Reform, and so I outline what that might look like here. I offer no timeline to this little fantasy, and I have no illusions that this discussion will go beyond the loyal readers of this blog. But here it is. Discuss.
First Stage of Mutual Enrichment
In this first stage, I see that there are many things that can be done now with no mixing of or change to the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Roman Rite as currently found in the liturgical books. I also envision some guidance from the Magisterium to point this mutual enrichment in the right direction so as to avoid arbitrariness and to give those priests who respond to the call to mutual enrichment support.
Enrichment of the Ordinary Form by the Extraordinary Form
– Bishops in Cathedrals and Pastors in their churches spontaneously adopting the ad orientem position at Mass as implicit in the OF after sustained catechesis of the faithful
– Reconstruction of altar rails in churches and the spontaneous use of the communion rail as a place from which to distribute Holy Communion
– Catechesis from the pulpit about the Church’s preference for Holy Communion on the tongue and under one species
– Move towards singing the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin at OF Masses
– Priests, on their own, choosing the options of the OF which are analogous to the EF, and leaving aside those which are not
– The spontaneous and consistent use by the clergy of the maniple, biretta, amice
– Singing of the Propers according to the Graduale Romanum at Sung Masses
– Enforcement of the ecclesiastical discipline on extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion
Enrichment of the Extraordinary Form by the Ordinary Form
– Celebration of at least one EF Mass as part of the ordinary Sunday Mass schedule by clergy trained to do it in their parishes.
– Use of the readings in the vernacular at Low Masses
– Recitation of the parts pertinent to the faithful
– Use of new prefaces and new saints’ Masses in the EF.
Magisterial Involvement
– document by the Congregations for Divine Worship and Doctrine of the Faith clarifying the Church’s teaching and discipline on the reception of Holy Communion, indicating the preference for the Church’s traditional mode of reception. In the same document, a clarification of the right of the priest to celebrate Mass ad orientem.
Second Stage of Reform of the Reform
In this second stage, the Magisterium would change the existing relevant liturgical and canonical legislation as well as provide new editions of the OF and EF Missals.
Papal Encyclical and Disciplinary Norms
The Reform of the Reform would be ushered into being by a papal encyclical, the Mediator Dei of our time. This encyclical would present a rich theology of the liturgy, a frank and honest reappraisal of post-Vatican II liturgical praxis, and a liturgical, historical, theological and canonical explanation of the following: the two forms of the Roman Rite and their mutual enrichment, the ad orientem position of celebration at the altar, the traditional mode for the reception of Holy Communion, Latin and sacred music. This encyclical would strongly encourage in an optional but clear way all of the points of the Reform of the Reform. This would be followed, after consultation with the entire hierarchy in a special synod on the Reform of the Reform, disciplinary norms which would indicate the normative status of each of the points of the Reform of the Reform.
Restoration of the Subdiaconate and the Revisiting of Pontificalis Domus
The disciplinary norms would include the restoration of the ancient subdiaconate to the life of the Church put in abeyance by Paul VI’s Ministeria Quaedam. It would also revisit the simplifications in Paul VI’s Pontificalis Domus concerning the costume of prelates to allow greater freedom for hierarchical dress.
Norms on Church Construction
Issuance by the Congregation for Divine Worship of practical guidelines for the building of new churches and the fabrication of new linens, vestments and vessels with accompanying theological and spiritual commentary (d’apres St Robert Bellarmine’s works on church construction).
The Reform of the Reform Edition of the OF Missal after the Encyclical
– dropping the options which are rarely used, streamlining of remaining options
– all editions of the Missal would be bilingual
– all editions of the Lectionary would be bilingual
– addition of a new Ritus Servandus with more detailed rubrics for the ceremonies
– the addition of the EF Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, Offertory Prayers and Last Gospel as an option in the OF
– restoration of the genuflection at the Creed and before the elevations in the OF
– restoration of some feasts from EF
– integration of Orations from the EF as options
– issuance of a Caeremoniale Presbyterorum from the Papal Household in a companion volume to the Missal
– integration of the Offertory Antiphons from the EF
– making the Prayer of the Faithful optional
– substantial restoration of the EF Kalendar to the OF
– integration of the EF Lectionary as an optional cycle of the OF
The Reform of the Reform Edition of the EF Missal after the Enyclical
– all editions would include the Readings, Antiphons and Orations in the vernacular as an option.
– permission for Holy Communion by intinction
– option for the pre-1955 Holy Week Rites
– addition of OF saints’ feasts not present in EF Missal as optional
– addition of some OF Prefaces
– option to omit the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and the Last Gospel
– composition of vernacular graduals for the antiphons for optional use
– option for the use of the OF Lectionary at Low Masses
– option for the distibution of Holy Communion by ordained subdeacons
Third Stage of the Missal of Benedict XVI, Pope of the Sacred Liturgy
This third stage would take place after the Reform of the Reform has been in place for some time and the Roman Curia, together with the world episcopate, can look into the feasibility of a once again united form of the Roman liturgy. With some distance from the post-Vatican II reforms and the lived experience of the Reform of the Reform, the Magisterium of the Church could ostensibly distill the organic development of the liturgy from its restoration and renewal into one Roman Rite again.
Is this a do-able Game Plan?
Let it be said from the beginning, that I am perfectly fine with celebrating the Missal of St Pius V in toto and the Missal of Paul VI as the occasion warrants. I do recognize, however, that flexibility in rubrics, calendars and rites, Communion under both species and the vernacular are among those things that Vatican II called for. Could they be allowed in the EF in an optional way so as to open the riches of the EF liturgy to more people? Also, the OF could easily be influenced by many of the prayers and ceremonies of the EF if that influence is tutelaged well by the Magisterium. But if priests attempt any of this on their own, they risk making the liturgy into an eccentric celebration of their opinion on how they think Mass should be celebrated. Because so much of the post-Vatican II Reform was imposed inorganically by arbitrary decisions of clergy and by officialdom, the Mutual Enrichment and Reform of the Reform also has to happen by the leadership of the clergy united with the Holy Father and the Roman Curia in collaboration with the world episcopate. Then, the organic process of liturgical development can begin again, and the future will be less charged with everyone making their own opinions into the standard of liturgical celebration.
I would love feedback on this scheme. I am not wedded to it. In fact, I am not totally sure that many of the ideas I propose here are prudent, workable or even desirable. But the discussion is beginning. This time, however, may we start, not with What do I think the liturgy should look like? but with How can I support the communion of the Church to restore the sacred and celebrate the Christian Mystery in spirit and in truth?
Dear Fr. Smith,
As a pastor for nine years in a small parish in NC, I applaud your post. I, too, have had to pray and discern how to make this "enrichment" possible. I have implemented much of your "First stage" and find that it works quite well. I offer both the OF and the EF Mass every Sunday and offer all the Masses in my parish ad orientem. I have also brought back into use the Propers (Introit, Offertory and Communion antiphons) and have taught the parish to chant them in English. The response from the parish has been very encouraging, although there are the very few that lament that we aren't using guitars anymore and singing the "greatest hits??" of the disaster that was "Glory and Praise". In addition there has been and continues to be strong education and catechesis from the pulpit and through the weekly bulletin. And while I think Stage One is extremely important, I pray that as a Church we will get to Stages Two and Three- for unless the Lord build the house… I would welcome hearing from you and will pray for your continued work in "stage one". Hopefully this post of mine will contribute in some small way to the furthering of the discussion. Oremus pro invicem! Fr. Eric Kowalski, Holy Angels Church
You touched on it briefly, but I would specify three of the BIGGEST things that would/should/could/must be done at some point:
1) UNIFIED CALENDAR! Somewhere between the (seemingly to me) dizzying calculus of the Old calendar, and the (again, seemingly to me) lackluster ordinariness (puns intended) of the new calendar, there should be a new new calendar that unifies both rites so that whether you're celebrating a Pontifical High Mass with gloves and cappas, or guitar-strumming in tie-died poly-blend OF, we are all celebrating the same feast on the same day.
2)More guidance on the place of the Propers in the OF. Combined with (1) (and a set of propers to match the new, new calendar) we could all be singing the same texts together, regardless of rite or style.
3)WAAAAAAY down the line… a single, unified Missal with enough "wiggle room" that Mass could be offered in a way that substantially matches what people should currently expect from either an EF or an OF.
I'm curious if anyone has given much thought also to something akin to the Anglo-Catholic middle-ground: Essentially a preconcilliar Mass, celebrated in the vernacular.
Father Smith,
This is a very thoughtful and interesting analysis and approach. I am pleased that so many young clergy are committed to a reform of a reform (which would have been unnecessary if the Consilium had never been created; the reform should have been left solely to the Congregation of Sacred Rites (I guess Worship today).
I think that restoration of ad orientem posture (at least for the Euchristic Prayer) is perhaps the most important aspect because it would refocus the Liturgy on the Lord rather than the celebrant. Like you, I would like to see a restoration of some of the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and the Offertory Prayers.
Clearly the myriad of options needs to be seriously curtailed. I always felt this made the Rite unstable and unpredictable.I believe the Roman Canon should be mandated for Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation. Chant clearly has to be a priority. What you're suggesting will not be accomplished in my lifetime, although you may live to see it. I hope you do. God Bless you Father Smith. Best, Tom
Hello, Father. I thank you for the post. I'm pretty new to EF, but I found it's the most beautiful thing (event) on this earth. And I feel total surrender and the humility which I didn't feel so strongly in OF. I also love EF, because it's so solid. Nobody needs to choose between various options in rubrics of celebrating EF as it is guarded with long standing tradition. Not every Catholics appreciate it, but those who do so maybe because EF is not in much danger of being damaged with options. I believe there are many clergies who are united with Holy Father and have great knowledge in liturgy, but also there are many who are not so blessed. If EF becomes unstable with options, I don't know where we EF lovers can go to enjoy that solid beauty. (I personally enjoy Readings in Latin, even they are repeated in vernacular. So if there are options, I may have to consider which Mass omit Readings in Latin. EF Mass will also become a pick&choose according to our taste?)
I hope keeping the tradition as it is for EF (except adding new saints in the calendar) is not a selfish desire, but I think this is more desperate to many EF lovers in our time.
One step would be to end the Low Mass of the 1962 Missal. The aim for a thoroughly musical liturgy is far from realized in the Roman Rite, but I don't think the Low Mass has anything to offer in that regard.
I think that the liturgy itself should be the focus of reform, not the reform itself: better music, better preaching, and the development of liturgical spirituality. The way to better liturgy is union with Christ, not chasing an historical idealism.
"I think that the liturgy itself should be the focus of reform, not the reform itself: better music, better preaching, and the development of liturgical spirituality."
Interesting, considering your recent posts. Shouldn't the sex scandal be the focus of reform? Or is the liturgy really the focus here, its just that YOU are the only one who is allowed to speak of its reform? I thought that the pope had that authority, but apparently it falls on you. You dispute what he says, and dismiss what your peers say by way of the sexual abuse red herring…
…but gee, by-golly, when Todd speaks of liturgical reform ala Vatican II, everybody gather 'round and listen!
Interesting that Fr. Smith's post is how we should not approach the liturgy with an "I think" attitude and yet Todd's post is all about what he thinks. His second paragraph even begins with "I think"
-[EF} option to omit the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and the Last Gospel
Fr. Smith. Thank you for your post. May I ask you why this should be an option?
(I assume with my small knowledge that these are not the main part of the Mass, but I think they are very beautiful, and afraid they will disappear by our inclination of following things easy and short when it's possible?)
Thanks you.
Almost without thinking about it, most Tridentine Low Masses had less chant than many celebrations of the Mass today. Even at daily Masses at my parish, the alleluia, the occasional psalm and the Lord's Prayer add a level of chant and solemnity lacking in the traditional Low Mass with or without its four hymn sandwich.
The chant tradition will be far better served attaching itself to the modern Roman Rite where it can flourish on Sundays, holy days and even weekday Masses. Think about those daily Masses, especially in large parishes, where chant can take root and reinforce a Catholic spirituality. The alternative, especially in traditionalist parishes, are a series of silent Masses that will do little to move Catholics from the status quo. The horizons are limitless for chant in the mainstream Church; don't get sidetracked in the scrap of a political argument from generations ago.
A very interesting approach. Have you given any thought to what might be the "timeline" for this? 5 years? 10 years? 50 years? There's an awful lot here that would require considerable time to become normative unless the Encyclical you speak of is proscriptive and backed up with some serious enforcement provisions. For instance, it would be necessary to actually prohibit much of what is current practice if the alternatives are to be instituted universally. This would most certainly be required in the changes you suggest to the liturgical music… in addition to a modern Mediator Dei for other aspects of the liturgy, there would have to be a modern Tra le Sollecitudini as well that "names names" and points out not only what is desired, but very forcefully proscribe what is prohibited.
It would be all very nice if the gradual change approach worked in all cases, but in the words of Dean Wormer –
"The time has come for someone to put his foot down. And that foot is me".
Todd is on to something about Low Mass. In the history of liturgy, Low Mass is rather a more recent thing, and I wonder to what extent it and the hymn sandwich imposed upon it is a reaction to the legislation that only the Latin texts could be sung at Mass and nothing else. I have grown to love my own private celebration of Low Mass, but I do recognise that the liturgy is really meant to be a sung liturgy. The OF, in being so open with regard to music, allows for the entire Latin liturgy, Propers and Ordinary to be sung, as well as a lot of other things.
I have noticed at EF places in France, Spain and Austria, that they do sometimes omit the Offertory Antiphon entirely and just sing stgh in the vernacular. Not saying they shd do this, but, when resources are scarce, I can understand why.
Also, the omission of the Foot Prayers and the Last Gospel is present in the 1965 Missal which did supposedly integrate the changes V2 asked for and no more. I think it would be sad to omit them in the EF, as it wd seem like Passiontide every day. Could they be integrated in the OF? Hmmm. I say them Ps 42 privately on my way to the altar and the LG on the way back. Maybe one day we can do them aloud.
A timeline: yesterday!!!!!! 🙂
As someone relatively new to the Church, and an "uniformed" layperson who is nonetheless fascinated with the details of these discussions, I wish that the tone of the discussion on blogs was more charitable and less "me" focused. And on so many websites, I am distressed by the amount of "I am not going to cooperate with the changes in the liturgy because I don't like them" mentality.
The reverence of the traditional liturgy, mixed with the openness of the ordinary form seems like a faithful approach. An OF with a Latin/vernacular mix would manifest the universality and history of the faith, while making the Mass more accessible within particular cultures . . . a more accessible transcendence, if you will. I will leave the details to the experts, only asking for charity in all things, and the recognition that adament, uncharitable dissent and open conflict has an adverse effect on the faithful.
I am puzzled as to why eliminating communion under both species and making the Prayer of the Faithful optional would be considered "enrichments." Both are explicitly called for by Sacrosanctum Concilium (paras. 53 and 55).
It's true that you can't mix rites but SP makes it clear that the EF and OF are different forms of the same Roman Rite. The Holy Father when incensing the oblations and the altar in the OF says the EF prayers – you can see his lips move!
The OF could be enriched by including the prayers at the foot of the altar as an option, which could be done without having to rewrite the Missal.
Todd is right in saying that Low Mass in the form of a Missa Lecta is fairly recent; I have read that until the 18th century the audible parts would have been chanted in a monotone. But those who for whatever reason prefer a Mass with no music, often getting up early on a Sunday morning to attend one, should not be ignored.
As far as the EF is concerned, the existing regulation that permits the use of vernacular hymns while prohibiting the singing of any part of the Ordinary in Latin (unless it's a full Sung Mass) needs looking at.
The problem with issuing an encyclical on the reform of the reform is that it is likely to be ignored. The abuses reprobated in Redemtionis Sacramentum (2004) are still perpetrated in many, perhaps most English parishes, with the full knowledge of the bishops.
Thank you so much for this!!! This sounds like just the right game plan! My two cents:
– option for the pre-1955 Holy Week Rites
What's wrong with the 1955 reform? I like the Easter Vigil at night. The real problem with the reform, it seems to me, is what to do about the beautiful Tenebrae. Holy Thursday and the Easter Vigil are now at night, and many pastors have to offer the Good Friday Commemoration also in the evening because of parishioners' work schedules. Yet the Tenebrae, by its very name, ought to be done a night as well. So, maybe the first three weekdays of Holy Week should have the Tenebrae as an option.
– option for the use of the OF Lectionary at Low Masses.
Good idea! The lectionary of the OF is the very best thing about the OF. Let's have it for all EF Masses, High & Low.
– the calendar. I like the OF Calendar's putting Holy Family on the 1st SU after 1st Christmas, putting the Baptism of Our Lord on the Sunday after Epiphany, and putting Christ the King as the last SU. I'm not sure why we need 17 days to prepare for Lent, however much I like the Shrovetide Sundays. Why Ember Days in Advent and Lent? Aren't Advent and Lent already Ember seasons? And if we have liturgical season, then isn't it logical to have a liturgical non-season, Ordinary Time? And it's irksome in the EF to start using Sundays after Epiphany for Sundays in November. I like how the OF makes Nov a month to remember saints, the dead, and the Parousia.
I would welcome in the OF the novena before Pentecost and the Octave of Pentecost. The Ordo says Pentecost is just as important as 1st Christmas, yet I fear it's becoming a liturgical and cultural stepchild.
F Bauerschmidt raises an interesting point. In this scheme I called for communion under both species in the EF by means of intinction, to respond to the call of V2 on that, and the catechesis on the fact that Communion can be received under only one species for those OF people who act as if it is not a valid Mass if they don't receive the Precious Blood (a problem I have only seen in the US). As per the Prayer of the Faithful, I mention it as optional in the OF if for no other reason than, unless we are given actual liturgical formularies for it, it becomes a free-for-all given over to creativity.
Ember Days!!!!! Oh yes, bring 'em back!!!
As per the 1955 Holy Week, it was a creation of Bugnini just as 1962 and 1970 were. I think that those communities who want to use them should be able to do so in the name of legitimate pluralism.
" … the catechesis on the fact that Communion can be received under only one species for those OF people who act as if it is not a valid Mass if they don't receive the Precious Blood …"
A few things.
It is a fuller and more perfect sign for communicants to receive under both forms.
That said, everyone knows one can validly receive under one form. Or even, as Archbishop Fisichella recently said, under neither form and go feed the poor.
The operative problem in some parishes is that the choice to receive is not governed by the communicants, but by the clergy. As long as the laity at every Mass have the choice to receive under two, one, or neither form, I have no problem with that. The pushback really comes when arbitrary or uninformed decisions are made by the clergy.
Archbishop Fischella's statement makes no sense. I cannot imagine he really believes it's better to forgo Holy Communion, a source of sanctifying grace.
. . . unless we are given actual liturgical formularies for it, it becomes a free-for-all given over to creativity.
Then perhaps the enrichment would be to provide formularies.
And ditto what Todd said about communion under both species. As to intinction: I don't know why anyone would want to introduce this untraditional practice into the EF. As far as I know, it has no precedent in the West prior to Vatican II. If people want communion under both species, they should be willing to fulfill Christ's command to "drink." Intinction is not drinking; it is eating something soggy.
I am not sure where the debate on the 'Reform of the Reform' will lead to – my experience is rather that the more 'traditional' elements are inserted into the Ordinary Form, the more the faithful become interested into the 'real thing' (and I mean this aesthetically, not theologically), the Extraordinary Form, and at some point a 'traditionalized' OF Mass starts looking like an awkward compromise.
When thinking about introducing elements from the OF into the EF one should not confuse 'mixing' with 'enriching'. It does not seem the point to 'streamline' the liturgies. I know a priest who believes that one should go for something like 1965 with the modern calendar that would still look traditional enough but be not far away from the OF. In my opinion, such demands for a 'political compromise' miss out the real demand of settling down at a really good and successful liturgy. In order to achieve that one has to look carefully about what elements of the OF would really consider an enrichment, and I cannot see why, for instance, making the Prayer of the Foot of the Altar would enrich the liturgy.
It is clear (and that would not even fall under enrichment but under necessary updating) that one should add new Saints' Days. Some of the OF Prefaces would already need some doctoring because quite a few (at least in the vernacular versions I know) leave out quite a lot of the references to the Angelic choirs that are in the EF an essential part of all Prefaces.
Things really become tricky with the Lectionary. I believe that one has to state three points.
Firstly, the 1962 Missal has indeed a very narrow choice of biblical lessons, and it may make sense to provide more (bizarrely, quite a few Old-Testament lessons had been removed or made ad-lib by the Reforms in the 1950s – probably devised by the same people who then complained about a lack of Biblical lessons in the liturgy). However, it is not really possible to use the OF lectionary in the EF because the collects and chants are often linked to the lessons so that one would have to rewrite much of the Propers (much of the modern Graduale Triplex follows the EF lectionary, and hence most of the chants of the first Sunday of Lent in years B and C make little sense because they take up a quotation from the Gospel of Year A). Lastly, one should ask whether the 3-year lectionary makes sense – and I regard it as rather doubtful to expect the people in the pews to remember the variants of a gospel lessons they heard in the two years beforehand. It would rather make sense to go back to the ancient system of Sunday lessons in the OF (which are very ancient, I think they had little change since the 8th century or so) and to devise an optional lectionary for the weekdays that contains the synoptic variants, as well as to introduce more options for biblical lessons for the Sanctorale and the Commune.
I would be deeply sceptical about introducing vernacular prayers – many priests today are so much used to ‘ad-libbing’ that insisting in Latin may be the only option for the moment. Furthermore, most collects are so difficult that they are hard to understand orally anyway; a congregation following them in the Missals will get more out of these texts than those listening to them in vernacular. Also a revival of short-lived experiments like ‘dialogue masses’ seem not very much appropriate – in my experience one has some faithful who shout the responses aggressively and make those who want to pray silently look like second-class citizens. In small congregations the responses can also be quite dragging on. It is certainly not wrong to follow the prayers at the altar and to join into the server’s answers with a low voice, but why does one have to shout them? Isn’t this like an anachronistic idea of community spirit? If a ‘dialogue mass’ happens, the faithful should not take the server’s part but rather the choir’s part – it is absurd if they join into the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar but not into the Gloria or Credo.
I believe that the Extraordinary Form needs less influence from the Ordinary Form but rather more caring interest into its own rich heritage. We should not try to revive liturgy as it was ca 1930 (and even less, in 1962) but rather see which elements that had been lost or neglected over the centuries could offer something for us today. For the Sundays, Sung Mass or even High Mass should be the standard (the use of permanent deacons could be a sensible enrichment from the OF), and plainchant or polyphony should be the preferred form over vernacular hymns (and one could also look into the long-lost treasure of sequences and tropes, many of which – not all – teach a lot about the faith). We also need to achieve a better consciousness of the church’s calendar – both the large seasons of Lent (marked out by Tracts and folded chasubles) and Eastertide, but also the less important feasts with their vigils and octaves and the saints’ days during the week that are so often forgotten.
Excellent comments from all sides. My reading of what the Holy Father is trying to do is to make sure that the EF is not a museum piece from before Vatican II. Can the EF be celebrated in such a way as to allow for some of the Vatican II directives, like Communion under both species and limited vernacular, without substantially changing the text of the rite (as opposed to the ceremonial) is the question I explore above. Again, I am more than happy celebrating the EF as it is, without allowing any of that stuff at all. Just raising the question.
As far as communion under both species, again, intinction allows for the removal of Communion in the hand, which many of us find has led to a denigration of the Real Presence, and is also the custom of the East. While I am aware that Our LORD said, "Take and drink," the ceremonial of the Institution Narrative has never followed exactly the words. After all, that is why we do not break the Host at the "and he broke the bread."
While I certainly understand the sign value of Communion under both species, in my experience I have found that it has led to some flatly denying Trent's very real and specific dogmatic declaration that Christ is received under either species, in places where Communion is received under both species. I cringe when people then say, "So when are we going to have wine at Mass?" AAAAACK.
Lautensack's cautions about the vernacular prayers introduced into the EF I share as well. It will be interesting to see if the liturgy of the new Anglican Ordinariate will include stgh based on the English Missal. That might give us some idea how this could work. But, if a priest is going to mess around, he will do so whatever rite and whatever language he celebrates in. Unfortunately.
Thanks for this post – and the thoughtful comments, which have helped me. I'm at the point of having introduced most of the "first stage" and wondering where to go from there. I've posted some comments on my own blog at: offerimustibidomine.blogspot.com/
Father Smith, I had a priest friend, long deceased, who was a peritus at the Council. He was shocked by the subsequent reforms because he told me it was pretty clear to him at the Council that what the Council Fathers wanted was some "trimming down" such as shorter Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, the possible elimination of the Last Gospel, the possibility for the non-Ordinary to be in the vernacular, expansion of the readings used at Mass, and the singing of the Chants of the Mass as the ordinary experience on Sunday for Catholics.That was all really accomplished in the 1965 Missal other than the expansion of the readings. My friend thought that the Novus Ordo went far beyond what the Council Fathers intended, but given, that it was pushed by Paul VI, most bishops eventually acquiesced, even though most knew the Novus Ordo was not what was intended in Sacrosanctum Concilium. Best, Tom
I'm not so sure it all needs to be so complicated. however, if we are to see the two Forms mutually enriching one another then Rome must give some direction as to how this is to be done in that mixing the Forms is forbidden to all of us, be we of Presbyteral and Episcopal rank. Currently my own attempt is limited to celebrating all Masses ad orientem; the singing the Sanctus, Pater Noster and Agnus Dei of the OF in Latin, and the use of vernacular readings in the EF. In both Forms I encourage reception on the tongue while kneeling, without refusing Communion in the hand where its use is permitted. Silence in Church before and after Mass has also gone a long way to establishing respect for the sacred liturgy and the Blessed Sacrament.
Perhaps to establish the Reform of the reform Rome may simply need to establish
1. a single calendar for both the ordinary and Extraordinary Forms
2. the restoration of the (and still rubrically directed) ad orientem/altar facing position in the OF
3. the restoration of Communion on the tongue while kneeling, which is still the Church’s official norm; reception on the hand being allowed only by the granting of the necessary indult (permission)
4. the restoration of the genuflections before the elevations and the Per ipsum
5. the use of the EF Offertory Prayers in the OF (they clearly prepare the Sacrifice while the OF Preparation of the Gifts prayers do not; they come from a Jewish Grace before meals which somehow gives lie to the central reality of the Eucharist as a Body given up and a Blood which is shed)
Individual parishes could be encouraged to establish small choirs or even a cantor who can sing the antiphons of the Propers. Indeed, the singing of hymns in either Form is not approvingly envisaged; they have the very lowest rank of approval even in the OF (cf. Musicam sacram, 1967) and have made even the OF into a ‘hymn sandwich’ type of liturgy in most places.
To my knowledge the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar where never part of the Dominican Rite prior to Vatican II, but seem to have a significant part to play in terms of theology and symbolism in that they allow the priest and people to make their Confession of sinfulness and plea for mercy before they enter the holy of holies. In the OF one enters the sanctuary immediately and as if by right, not by mercy; only then does one Confess and make one’s plea for mercy.
Fr Dickson
As to the reading cycle, if we wanted to expand the lessons for weekly Masses, we should take another look at the '67 Lectionary and not the OF Lectionary. The EF cycle of readings should be the one retained, and expanded in a non-altering way as per the '67 Lectionary. The OF Lectionary should be ditched.
The Kalendar should go back to something more akin to the '62. New saints added as well as some of the Octaves and other such things dropped between circa '51 and '70. Saints days should be restored to their traditional Kalendar dates and not some of the OF dates which may reflect the Martyrology day or other significant days but not the actual liturgically lived days.
Really, this "reform of the reform" should just be a way of quietly phasing out the Novus Ordo. I think if we are honest with ourselves, we can see that the main reason the NO is retained is for the political and other ramifications of a whole scale ditching of it would bring about. No matter how nicely it would be said, ditching would say those who came up with it, pushed it and yes, promulgated it screwed up. Unfortunately, the Vatican seems (and has been that way for much longer than the last 50 yrs.) loathe to actually come out and say that their predecessors screwed up.
Although not a perfect analogy, it reminds me of when Coca-Cola came up with New Coke. They thought it was going to be great to update and modernize their flagship but their constituents cried bloody murder and soon Coca-Cola "Classic" was back. I think they even existed side by side for awhile, though we all know which one triumphed.
NewCoke wasn't even that bad, its just that when I want Coke I want real Coke, not something that tastes like store brand cola. Of course, real Coke Traditionalists buy the stuff made with real sugar by I digress…
Same with NewMass. Its not heretical, etc. etc. ad nauseam, its just not the "real thing".
Coming very late to this party, I can only envision a decades-long timeline for this plan. Three revised Missals(!), an encyclical, and restoration of the subdiaconate. Presumably with time for implementation between each, all of it starting after "spontaneous" adoption of traditional options in the Novus Ordo. After Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict asked bishops to report after three years. I wonder how many did? Or are working on it?
That said, lots of good and interesting ideas here. Fr Smith, in the option to add "the EF Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, Offertory Prayers and Last Gospel as an option in the OF," do you see these as one option (all or none), or options to add each separately?
It would enrich the formation of children and raise the consciousness of teens and adults to restore the genuflection at the Creed, exhibit 1 being the utter failure of the 1970's rubric "All bow during these two lines"….
Perhaps kneeling at the "incarnatus" might begin to stir some soul-searching about the fitness of "soccer-wear" at Mass, and other "innovations"
YOU SPELLED CALENDAR WRONG!
One thing about the lectionary:
We might have to split it up into more volumes if it is sometimes going to be proclaimed like they do at a solemn high mass (the subdeacon holding it the whole time), because the book they have now might be kinda heavy for that purpose.