Thread: Eccles: Novus Ordo Missae goes Ruby Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000729
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
Today marks the fortieth anniversary of the introduction of the Roman Missal of Paul VI. It seems a good time to assess its impact. I would welcome my Shipmates assessments.

[ 02. August 2016, 22:01: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
It tidied up the Latin Rite, which had become a jungle of obscure rubrics, performed badly on the whole, and which had ossified.

In its place it introduced an era of lawlessness and liturgy at home in a concrete jungle, shorn of beauty and dignity.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
The old rite hadn't really ossified, since it was often tweaked and pruned (sometimes drastically as in the Holy Week rites) in the decades preceding the Council. Gradual, organic change like that was always the way of liturgical development hitherto. The Council was asking for more of the same, really.

The tragedy of the N.O. we got was that it was so far from the liturgy the Council was actually asking for.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
It's well to point up that the Novus Ordo, at least in its English rendering, had a massive impact on the liturgies of ecclesial communities outside the RCC, especially the liturgies of Lutheran and Anglican bodies. Many of us would consider that impact largely negative in terms of Anglican churches; perhaps less so amongst Lutherans who historically hadn't possessed prayerbook English and for whom the previous incorporation of a BCP style into their English liturgies was likewise a kind of foreign importation.
 
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 
It helped bring about 40 years of watered-down faith and cafeteria catholicism. Whether that was intended I do not know.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
I dunno. As much as I don't care for the language of the ICEL NO, I wonder if it's really to blame for theological and disciplinary drift.
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
It also produced groups of elitist Catholics who hived themselves into separatist corners where they could congratulate themselves on their Catholic purity while pouring scorn on other Catholics. I am pretty sure that was not what was intended.

The last time I attended Mass in the old rite (a few months ago) I remembered again just why reform was so necessary. And the groupies in attendance reminded me just how sad sectarianism within the Catholic Church is.
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
[Tangent alert] Is the purpose of having several different Eucharistic prayers to choose from helpful? We have different Eucharistic prayers as well, that of St. John Chrysostom for most of the year, that of St. Basil for penitential seasons, and St. James for special days relating to him. But those rites are not for just preventing boredom by switching one for another to encourage people to be on their toes.

Just wondering... there will always be some who prefer one rite over another, but should there be some kind of "order" as to which rite is most appropriate for the season? [/tangent]

Mary

[ 18. November 2009, 15:00: Message edited by: Leetle Masha ]
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
I've always thought that the multiple Eucharistic prayers in the post-V2 RCC and in Anglican churches was a symptom of liturgy by committee. By contrast, in the Lutheran churches it seems to emanate from two different POVs about Eucharistic liturgy: the traditional Lutheran view that just the Verba are entirely sufficient for the celebration of the Eucharist, and a more modern view that it is desireable to enclose the Words of Institution within a suitable Eucharistic prayer.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
It tidied up the Latin Rite, which had become a jungle of obscure rubrics, performed badly on the whole, and which had ossified.

In its place it introduced an era of lawlessness and liturgy at home in a concrete jungle, shorn of beauty and dignity.
As an outsider looking in, I don't see the connection. What is there in the NO, as opposed to the belief that liturgy is a free-for-all, which encourages 'a concrete jungle, shorn of beauty and dignity'?
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Yes, and in CoE parishes that use the NO, it certainly doesn't degenerate into the liturgical boorishness and philistinism that characterises so many RC churches. Blame can't really be layed at the feet of the ICEL NO per se.
 
Posted by uffda (# 14310) on :
 
I can still remember the priest in my home parish getting up on Sunday morning to tell the assembled congregation: "This is the change we have to do this week!" I recall the hastily assembled plywood altars, and Luther's 'A Mighty Fortress" being sung (well, maybe not sung, that might be overstating it!)

Still in all, the 3 year lectionary, emphasis on homiletical preaching, and active participation by the assembly, to say nothing of the impact on Anglicans, Lutherans, and other non-Catholics are significant fruits, even if the language is a bit banal, and the music insignificant.

[ 18. November 2009, 15:26: Message edited by: uffda ]
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
Sorry, I did not mean to suggest that the Rite itself is responsible. I rather like the noble simplicity and myself believe the new rite is superior to what went before.

But its introduction was the prelude to the symptoms I described. The result has been far from edifying. What we have ended up with is a divided Church, with hardened arteries on all sides.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
As another outsider with occasional 'Roman fever' looking in, it has suffered from bad, prosaic translation.

As for sloppiness, I saw plenty of sloppy Tridentine masses in my teens.
 
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 
My prior post might lead one to think that I am not a fan of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. That is not so. I actually prefer a well-done OF to the EF, although the EF can be moving.

I do wonder if the simplified liturgy lead many to think that the faith were simplified as well. Hence the watered down faith and cafeteria catholicism to which I made reference earlier.

I see no theological reason why we cannot have multiple Eucharistic Prayers. From a practical viewpoint I wish they were limited to the four main ones rather than including the other ones.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Isn't it more likely that the abandonment of old disciplines like meatless Fridays (outside of Lent) and old pieties did more to undermine Catholic fidelity than the NO? The excessive protestantisation of RC places of worship - especially newly built ones - did liturgical celebration no favours IMO.
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
Pluses:
Minuses:
I'd also add some things related to the liturgy after the Council, but not actually part of the Novus Ordo Missae.

Good:
Bad:
 
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
The excessive protestantisation of RC places of worship - especially newly built ones - did liturgical celebration no favours IMO.
Ugh! One of my pet peeves. Some newer RC churches don't even look Protestant. They look like business conference rooms or some temple from Star Trek!
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
in CoE parishes that use the NO, it certainly doesn't degenerate into the liturgical boorishness and philistinism that characterises so many RC churches. Blame can't really be layed at the feet of the ICEL NO per se.
This is true. I wouldn't want to blame the Novus Ordo for such faults unless the way high mass is celebrated in a place like the Cathedral of the Madeleine in Salt Lake City were unexpectedly disappointing. Of the various varieties of liturgical reformist described by Msgr. Mannion in Beyond the Prosaic, his own was to use the Novus Ordo as carefully and beautifully as possible. There is certainly ample room for improvement along those lines in the average parish.

My first attack of Roman Fever occurred in the late 1960s, when the Episcopal Church was going through liturgical experimentation that I found very distasteful (at least as it was conducted in my parish), and I made my dissatisfaction known.
But liturgical change was also underway in RC parishes. The apparent docility of the people seemed amazing. Suddenly they all stopped doing things as they had done for centuries and did them differently. How did this happen? Did the priest simply stand in front of them one morning and announce that from now on, for instance, they would no longer genuflect in the middle of the Creed? Was their apparently painless conformity a matter of obedience or indifference? It still puzzles me. I'd be far too passive-aggressive to give up a gesture like that in the Episcopal church if I cherished it. Perhaps that's a way in which I'm still a Protestant, after all.

[Tidied up link. Mamacita, Host]

[ 19. November 2009, 03:22: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Oh dear, New Yorker, so true. In fact what I was thinking of were two RC churches back in Texas, one in Fort Worth and one in Lubbock. Both were pretty gruesome and did indeed look like business conference centres into which a crucifix had been incongruously dropped. My old A-C parish of St Timothy's used the Fort Worth RC church for an additional Sunday Mass during a period of time that St Tim's was trying to relocate from its digs in a dying part of town to a suburban area of new growth (the RC parish was located in the part of town we wanted to move to and close to where the parish had an option on land). They were very gracious, as was the RC bishop of Fort Worth, in letting us use their church, but it was a very odd setting for Anglo-Catholic worship!
 
Posted by cor ad cor loquitur (# 11816) on :
 
I also think that the NO is superior to the older form, especially when celebrated in Latin. It is simpler and cleaner and not "dumbed down". Triple Tiara and FCB have summed it up well for me.

The biggest advantage of the older form is its tendency to repetition -- witness the prayers at the foot of the altar. I find it easy to lose myself in the repetitive prayers, almost like wandering through a labyrinth. The NO is more linear and straightforward, and hence better for ordinary use. It is good to have both, with the EF the exception and not the regular rite.

There is a lot of post hoc ergo propter hoc in discussions of the NO vs the EF. Most of the pre-Vatican II Masses of my childhood were hardly the transcendent experiences that the tradbloggers write about. Most were done in less than half an hour, recited by a bored priest in a gabble of mispronounced Latin. And the music! Awful. Wheezy, out-of-tune organ, dreary hymns set to sentimental, faux-classical arrangements by an Italian composer whose name is happily forgotten. Ugly, dark churches.

I think a lot of things that people moan about -- the "reordering" of churches (and some of them really needed it), the sexual revolution, etc., would have happened even if the NO hadn't been introduced. They were the result of broader social changes. The NO was an effect of these forces, in my view, more than it was a cause.
 
Posted by St.Silas the carter (# 12867) on :
 
FCB sums up my exact thinking. The ordinary form is decidedly more accessable,and it's easier to have a nice sung mass with all the trimming in the novus ordo than in the tridentine. That said,Even though nine times out of ten I would prefer the new mass, I find it terribly didactic and it's offertory rite vague and watered-down. I also wish that so much of the mass were'nt left up to however the priest feels, or whatever he wants to do.While we might not need the rigidity of the old rite, simple explanations such as how far or high to hold your hands in the orans, or how to incense the altar, etc, would be nice.
I also believe that some of the prayers went through some unnecessary cutting.

I don't think, however, that the introduction of the novus ordo led to a decline in faith or practice. Numerous examples of places that introduced the new mass but with the same faith, same devotions,and in some places, same vestments and music.In these places, the faith grows and the people aren't quite as complacent.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
I too think the NO Mass is fine in Latin. Not dumbed down and much more accessible than the ER, which I also love. The only thing which galls me is the appalling English translation. There are some who think the new version is worse. I disagree and think its an improvement, but it isn't without its problems.
 
Posted by Eddy (# 3583) on :
 
Is the anniversary of the Modern Rite first coming out in English or in Latin?

I like it as simple and noble, and so much clearer in structure and far less fussy than Common Worship which seems to need loads of books and then the priest has difficulty finding his way around it.

Its a bit mad that the reformation has gone wonky in liturgical terms! RCs have got simpler C of Es with there loads of books alternatives different Calendars etc have made it more complicated!
 
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 
So I think this is an appropriate question for this thread.

As I understand the USCCB's vote clears the way for the Holy See to finally approve the new English translation. I think it much better than the current version, though it does have some tongue twisters. Can the Vatican approve the new text while at the same time changing parts of it to be more user friendly? I am thinking now of the commemeration of the living as translated in the Roman Canon.
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
As someone who sits regularly in the pews I don't have too many grouses with the english of the Novus Ordo.

I don't appreciate the form of the Gloria which misses out the repetitions of the Latin.

But the one thing I really don't like is in the EPs when a particular commemoration of a dead person is made :

Remember .... whom you have called from this life.In baptism (s)he died with Christ,may (s)he also share His resurrection.

Remember our brothers and sisters,who have gone to their rest...........

To me it seems that,by this form of words, the particular person and the generality of the departed are two quite separate entities.They should be linked ,possibly by saying after the particular commemoration : Remember all our brothers and sisters...........

The three year cycle of readings means a great deal more of Scripture is read in public.

The 'novus Ordo' (an expression I really learned on the Ship) can be just as noble as the Tridentine Mass,which nowadays 'seems' unduly fussy.In actual fact it wasn't unduly fussy when it was accepted as the normal way of celebrating Mass in the Roman rite.But these days are now past.

People sometimes talk about the sloppiness of the NO and I certainly don't like it if a priest or another minister does not make an effort to make themselves understood.At the same time the opportunity of wider participation in the liturgy by people who are not professional actors is a good thing,even if the reseults are not always first class.If it comes from the heart then it should strike a chord in the heart of the other participants.

As Trisagion has reminded us it is now 40 years since the introduction of the new Missal.It is a new breed of Catholic priests.40 years ago few Catholic priests really had to bother about people understanding them when they celebtrated Mass. People understood them in other ways.The old Mass,as one of our posters said to me 'fostered the piety of the faithful'.
The new Mass has to speak to them directly and clergy and other participants have to be aware not just of what they say but how they say it.

FCBs contribution was ,to my mind,spot on - as were many others.
 
Posted by angelicum (# 13515) on :
 
The Pauline Mass, done well, to my mind anyway actually looks and feels more Roman and better exemplifies the genius of the Roman rite more than the pre-V2 Mass - noble, simple, linear and just very clean all around. I love it and I think Fr Fortescue would have as well.
 
Posted by Shadowhund (# 9175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
So I think this is an appropriate question for this thread.

As I understand the USCCB's vote clears the way for the Holy See to finally approve the new English translation. I think it much better than the current version, though it does have some tongue twisters. Can the Vatican approve the new text while at the same time changing parts of it to be more user friendly? I am thinking now of the commemeration of the living as translated in the Roman Canon.
Rome has already approved the Ordo Missae - - the one with the tongue twister - - but everything else is still in the pipeline for approval. They could go back and make alterations...it is the papacy after all...but as a practical matter I don't think they are going to revisit it.
 
Posted by Eddy (# 3583) on :
 
I thought this was about the translation of the Latin, the Ordo Missae has been approved 40 years ago and isnt changing - am I right on this?

What is changing is the translation...

BUT I may be entirely wrong on this and would welcome clarifications.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
What have they done with Kyrie, Gloria in Excelsis, Sanctus-Benedictus, and Agnus Dei?
Changed them just enough to break all settings
of the mass in English attempted in the past forty years, I suppose, when they're still allowed at all. Just as the ICEL obsoleted the liturgical music of the previous four hundred or more.

Liturgical termites. Will the church ever get a stable repertoire or the interest of worthwhile composers again at this rate?

Please say it ain't so. [Help]
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Thanks to every one for this interesting thread, and especially to Lietuvos and the liturgical scholars (you know who you are! [Smile] ) for enlightening me on the features and reasons for everything. Very, very helpful in my thinking about you all, which I do with love!

Mary
 
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :
 
As has been stated, the Novus Ordo had great impact on all of book-liturgy Christendom. Common texts have been invaluable, and they will be missed.

Unfortunately, there is still a great degree of anti-Protestant knee-jerking. The Vatican missed an opportunity in this new mass translation--an invitation could have been issued to rework the common texts collaboratively.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
Hopefully the new English translation of the Novus Ordo rite will restore increased solemnity to the Catholic Mass.

There is something more solemn responding with "And with thy spirit" rather than "And also with you".
 
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
There is something more solemn responding with "And with thy spirit" rather than "And also with you".
That's a point-of-view issue, though. (And I'm not disagreeing with you. I find "And with thy spirit" more solemn-sounding, but it's merely because that is what I grew up with. Formal, old-fashioned language is more solemn-sounding because it is more distant and other-worldly for us.)

The old liturgical texts almost served as a barrier or a separation. They set church apart, and for some people, they distanced us so far from the Divine that the barrier was insurmountable. The "new" texts help to eliminate that barrier.

I'm not convinced that, in this age of declining church attendance in the Western world, we need to build new barriers. Don't get me wrong, I laud the effort to craft a better translation of the Missal, but I'm not so sure they have accomplished a better translation. It seems to have traded one problem (dynamic equivalence) with another (slavish literalism).

[ 21. November 2009, 18:49: Message edited by: Martin L ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by St.Silas the carter:
While we might not need the rigidity of the old rite, simple explanations such as how far or high to hold your hands in the orans, or how to incense the altar, etc, would be nice.
If that's anywhere it'll be in the GIRM not the translation of the liturgy.
 
Posted by ThinkČ (# 1984) on :
 
Seamus Heaney's tranlsation of Beowulf is one of the best, because he is a poet. And ITSTM that maybe that's what the committee needs/needed.

It may not even be about easy or modern or old language, but what people do want is beautiful language.

I remember being told the older religious texts were always in verse because they were originally taught as part of an oral tradition and that's how people were able to memorise them.

[ 21. November 2009, 20:34: Message edited by: ThinkČ ]
 
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThinkČ:
Seamus Heaney's tranlsation of Beowulf is one of the best, because he is a poet. And ITSTM that maybe that's what the committee needs/needed.

It may not even be about easy or modern or old language, but what people do want is beautiful language.

I remember being told the older religious texts were always in verse because they were originally taught as part of an oral tradition and that's how people were able to memorise them.
I believe a poet was used when the mass translations were done in the 1960s, and I definitely recall one of the US Catholic bishops requesting a poet for this most recent translation during a USCCB meeting a handful of years ago (on what certainly must have been a boring afternoon with nothing else on TV!)

Fidelity to the Latin texts is the primary concern right now, and it will make the texts rather cold and off-putting to many.

[ 21. November 2009, 20:39: Message edited by: Martin L ]
 
Posted by ThinkČ (# 1984) on :
 
But, for example, sonnet forms of poetry were developed in English - precisely to imitate latin metric poetry. So in some ways you'd think that versifying a latin translation into English accurately, ought to be possible. Especially as latin does not impose its own word order because of its cases - giving a translator more chance of getting a fit.
 
Posted by cor ad cor loquitur (# 11816) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
quote:
Originally posted by ThinkČ:
Seamus Heaney's tranlsation of Beowulf is one of the best, because he is a poet. And ITSTM that maybe that's what the committee needs/needed.

It may not even be about easy or modern or old language, but what people do want is beautiful language.

I remember being told the older religious texts were always in verse because they were originally taught as part of an oral tradition and that's how people were able to memorise them.
I believe a poet was used when the mass translations were done in the 1960s, and I definitely recall one of the US Catholic bishops requesting a poet for this most recent translation during a USCCB meeting a handful of years ago (on what certainly must have been a boring afternoon with nothing else on TV!)

Fidelity to the Latin texts is the primary concern right now, and it will make the texts rather cold and off-putting to many.
The new translations seem cold and off-putting because they are not poetic, that's definitely true.

The primary problem with the new translations, though, is that they are not faithful to the Latin texts. By translating word-for-word, they lose the meaning. St Jerome understood this, back in the early 5th century. The authors of Liturgiam Authenticam, the badly framed guide to translations, don't understand.

By all means, let's find out "what the prayers really say". Then, let's find ways to express that with clarity and grace and power. The new translations don't do either.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
By all means, let's find out "what the prayers really say". Then, let's find ways to express that with clarity and grace and power. The new translations don't do either.

Do I take it from this that you prefer the current translation of the NO? It was only a couple of years ago, when I taught myself to read Latin, that I realised how much I've underestimated the Novus Ordo, based entirely on the atrocious English. I think the new one's better. But I agree with a point you made on another thread, that the Book of Divine Worship would be a marverllous addition to the English speaking Catholic Church.
 
Posted by cor ad cor loquitur (# 11816) on :
 
My normal Sunday Mass is Latin, Novus Ordo, and I have studied Latin at postgraduate level and can therefore understand it (reading or hearing it spoken or chanted) reasonably well, at sight and without a dictionary to hand. So I do know how much was simplified and shortened in the current translations.

BUT the existing translations are at least in English. The new ones are in a bizarre argot -- Englat? Latish? -- that corresponds to no natural language. So yes, I prefer the existing ones.

To Trisagion's OP: this is the anniversary of the Novus Ordo in Latin, not of the translations. There are reasonably few substantive changes, in my view, between the Latin of the EF and that of the OF. Certainly the difference was not enough to change the "intention" of the Mass or other sacraments, as Richard Williamson's latest wheeze alleges. So these discussions of the English translations are something of a tangent, I think. Mea culpa!
 
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
Certainly the difference was not enough to change the "intention" of the Mass or other sacraments, as Richard Williamson's latest wheeze alleges. So these discussions of the English translations are something of a tangent, I think. Mea culpa!
Don't you mean "Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa"? [Razz]

Overall, is there an impression in the Catholic world that the masses in the common tongue have truly helped the faithful to participate more fully in the Mass?

In this Lutheran's observation, it seems to be the case, but the English mass predates my birth by more than a handful of years.

I think the best thing would be the increased transparency of the sacred rites of the Holy Triduum--rites that people would almost certainly not have understood in the original Latin. With the Paul VI missal, a new wave of attention has been paid to the rich words of liturgy and scripture contained within those rites. Of course, for us Protestants, the Englishing of those rites actually delivered them back to us.

In 1979, we Lutherans in the US had our first liturgical book with proper liturgies for Lent and Holy Week (although they were contained only in the altar book). In 2006, our new liturgical book included those proper liturgies in the actual pew editions that we common pewfolk use. I don't think it's too much to say that the Missal of Paul VI helped to bring around that welcomed change. Even groups such as the Methodists and Presbyterians (!) have those Holy Week liturgies available to them in their own liturgical books.

I do realize that the reform of the Holy Triduum rites began decades earlier, but to be honest the Pius XII reforms were still far too stereotypically Catholic for us Protestants (for instance, the collects at the Great Vigil were still retaining Flectamur Genua/Levate--pardon my Latin which is probably incorrect!)

[ 22. November 2009, 22:23: Message edited by: Martin L ]
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
It is interesting that discussions of the Novus Ordo seem to be inseparable from discussions of the vernacular. I think that apart from any changes in text and ritual, this, along with the priest facing the people across the altar, is what people associate with the "New Mass" -- and these were both things that became common practice before the Novus Ordo Missae appeared.
 
Posted by angelica37 (# 8478) on :
 
I'm a 42 years old cradle Catholic so I remember nothing before the Novus Ordo, I've never been to Mass in Latin and learned no Latin in school.
I am quite glad to have Mass in a language I understand and quite frankly wouldn't see much point in brining back Latin for everyday parish use.
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
One would need to be well over 50 to remember the Latin Mass,as it was,when it was the usual form of the Mass in rc churches.

Like everything else it wasn't all bad and it wasn't all good.It 'fostered the piety of individuals' and it united them in the one great sacrifice of praise,but it was quite different from today's Mass.

The difficulties with Latin were not as great as one might think - but in the sense that most people did not expect to understand more than a few words.Devout people could learn some of the ever recurring parts like Kyrie eleison :dignum et justum est: sanctus,sanctus etc.but one time when the Latin was a definite barrier was at the time of the Triduum with the long reading of the Passion on Good Friday - normally the epistle and gospel would be read in the language of the people by the priest after he had read it in Latin but this was impossible on Palm Sunday and Good friday. another 20 mins would have been too much.All the solemn prayers with Flectamus genua Levate could be missed and the prayers on Holy Saturday were 'purgatory'.

I had a meeting with an intelligent episcopalian today who asked me what the Tridentine Mass had to do with tridents.

All in all the missal of Paul VI is an improvement.
 
Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on :
 
Yes, Forthview, I agree completely with what you say. Also there has been a great improvement liturgically over the last few years. Incense has returned in churches where it had vanished almost completely and there has been a more dignified approach to liturgy. There are all sorts of reasons for this that I don't want to go into here but the RCC was not noted for its ability to do liturgy well in the Tridentine period. I'm sure we've learnt from the Anglicans! We are less tawdry and the lace, if we have it at all, is cleaner than it used to be.
 
Posted by Shadowhund (# 9175) on :
 
The big problem with the Novus Ordo is neither the text itself nor the (current) GIRM. The big problem is that, in practice, it has been often treated as if it were something like the 1549 Book of Common Prayer, that is the jumping-off point for more radical de-sacralization of the liturgy with a view towards denial of infallibly taught Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist. This, I'm sorry to say, is the dominate manner in which the Novus Ordo has been experienced in many places in the United States, though fortunately, not in my parish. (Unlike the 1549 BCP, the Novus Ordo was not designed by Paul VI or Msgr. Bugnini to be a "transitional" liturgy or to otherwise deny Catholic doctrine.) In this respect, the liturgical reform was a failure.

On the other hand, there were some good things that came out the Novus Ordo, including the three-year lectionary, the elimination of the silent canon, the ability to sing or chant the entire eucharist from being to end by both priest and people, and EPIII, which is in my opinion a superb anaphora, one that should vex theologically literate reformed/evangelical Protestants.
 
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I had a meeting with an intelligent episcopalian today who asked me what the Tridentine Mass had to do with tridents.
I knew a theology professor (Ph.D. from a Catholic university) who believed it was called the Tridentine rite because "many parts of the Mass were repeated in threes."
 
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
It is interesting that discussions of the Novus Ordo seem to be inseparable from discussions of the vernacular. I think that apart from any changes in text and ritual, this, along with the priest facing the people across the altar, is what people associate with the "New Mass" -- and these were both things that became common practice before the Novus Ordo Missae appeared.
I wouldn't exactly say "common practice," but you've got a good point.

The elimination of the interminable sacrificial offertory prayers was long overdue. Making the Mass audible again to the people was also long overdue.

On a side note, Trisagion started the thread. I've been waiting excitedly to hear his opinion!
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
I think the problem is catechesis.

And I have found the solution!
 
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by angelica37:
I'm a 42 years old cradle Catholic so I remember nothing before the Novus Ordo, I've never been to Mass in Latin and learned no Latin in school.
I am quite glad to have Mass in a language I understand and quite frankly wouldn't see much point in brining back Latin for everyday parish use.
I'm 49, and my earliest Mass memories were of the 1965 rite. I'd love to see a video or hear an audio of that rite if any exists. Haven't found one yet. Lots of texts of the rite, and I have a missal from then, but it would be great to see/hear it again.
 
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:
Originally posted by angelica37:
I'm a 42 years old cradle Catholic so I remember nothing before the Novus Ordo, I've never been to Mass in Latin and learned no Latin in school.
I am quite glad to have Mass in a language I understand and quite frankly wouldn't see much point in brining back Latin for everyday parish use.
I'm 49, and my earliest Mass memories were of the 1965 rite. I'd love to see a video or hear an audio of that rite if any exists. Haven't found one yet. Lots of texts of the rite, and I have a missal from then, but it would be great to see/hear it again.
What about this?

Mass at Nicolas due Chardonnet
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
This Mass at St Nicholas du Chardonnet shows more or less exactly what the Tridentine Mass was like though perhaps not with all the 'enfants de choeur' (choir boys,altar boys).
Someone remarked at an earlier time this was shown that the readings were done in French,but before Vat 2 it was quite common in France to have someone,apart from the celebrant ,to read the epistle etc in French while the priest read it in Latin at the altar.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin L:
On a side note, Trisagion started the thread. I've been waiting excitedly to hear his opinion!
The reason I started this thread was to inform myself rather than to air an opinion.

As you might have picked up before, I am 'attached' (to use the expression coined by an earlier motu proprio) to the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite and would want to identify myself entirely with the remarks in both the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum and in the Holy Father's accompanying letter. The consequence of that is that I delight in both forms. Nevertheless, I can see weaknesses in both forms, many of which have more to do with the ars celebrandi fostered by the forms than by the forms themselves.

To pick up on a few of the points in the thread which (as my brother deacon has so rightly pointed out) are not directly related to the two forms per se:

a. I think that the use of the vernacular, especially in the proclamation of Sacred Scripture, has been a blessing;
b. I am far from convinced that celebration facing the people is a blessing;
c. The almost complete loss of the use of the Latin language, particularly having regard to the fact that, no matter what we might want to pretend, English is not yet a lingua franca;
d. The failure to cherish and nurture the traditional music of the Roman Rite is, I think, a lost opportunity; and
e. The adoption of a folksy, primary/elementary school assembly style of parish celebration has done more to destroy the sense of the Mass as the worship of God than any number of other things.

My reservations about the reformed rite proper and my irritations with the antecedent form proper are neither here nor there when set against the remarks above.

Finally, and as Fr TT knows, I'm not convinced that the Council Fathers got what they thought they'd mandated.
 
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
The adoption of a folksy, primary/elementary school assembly style of parish celebration has done more to destroy the sense of the Mass as the worship of God than any number of other things.
I'm afraid it is this which has been the biggest negative legacy of the "new" Mass.

I do think that the "new" Mass has reminded the faithful that they should been full and active participants in the Mass. Now that people are conscious once again of that fact (and the fact that simply attending Mass shouldn't be the goal), I think the Extraordinary Form of Mass would be more meaningful to them, in a new and refreshed way that would not have existed without decades of using the Ordinary Form.
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
Broad agreement with TT, FCB and C-Ad-C, although with a liking of quite a lot of more modern liturgical music (there is bad folk-style music, but then there are dreadful settings of the Latin ordinary. There is trash for every taste.)

I don't, however, like the 'folk mass' concept. There should no more be Mass for those who like guitars than there should be Mass for those who love fiddlebacks or Mass for those born on a Thursday. There is just Mass, the synaxis of the People of God. And I think there is great virtue in all of us being exposed to stuff outside our aesthetic comfort zones as part of this. Belonging is painful sometimes.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0