Dr. Robert Moynihan writes in Inside the Vatican:
At least one Vatican official I talked to recently told me he believes the future of the Church’s liturgical life will be a type of fusion between the old Mass and the new Mass of Paul VI. This is the view of many.
But at least one Vatican official I talked to, also in the past month, told me he believes the future is solely and exclusively in a return to the old rite. “The old rite is our past, and it will be our future, ” he told me. “The new Mass is a passing phase. In 50 years, that will be entirely clear.” (Source)
If that’s true, I’ll be 97 when everything is entirely clear. I don’t expect still to be editing this blog. – awr
Share on:
#1 by Jeffrey Pinyan on September 8, 2010 - 10:22 am
Quote
+JMJ+
Mine is the first view, not the second. Although I have no idea as to the time frame, I think it’s more likely that the E.F. and O.F. will be fused in some way. Certain elements which were discarded from the E.F. will be restored, certain elements which were restored (either in theory or in reality) in the O.F. will be retained, etc. That’s my guess.
#2 by Jack Wayne on September 8, 2010 - 10:30 am
Quote
I think there will be a synthesis of the two missals as the normative liturgy – but which heavily favors the Tridentine to the point that it’ll look and feel more like a reformed version of that form – basically, taking what has worked for the Novus Ordo and applying it to the Tridentine to get the best of both. I don’t see a return to an only-Latin liturgy, so this “new” missal will probably be allowed in the Vernacular. However, I see the stigma against Latin lessening more and more every year – so I think Latin will feature more prominently in future Masses than it does today (but, then, any amount of Latin would be more than what is normally used, so that isn’t saying much).
#3 by Scott Knitter on September 8, 2010 - 10:41 am
Quote
Might this synthesis end up looking like the 1965 rite?
http://www.coreyzelinski.8m.com/1965_Mass/
#4 by Karl Liam Saur on September 8, 2010 - 10:47 am
Quote
I seriously doubt either prediction, which bear all the marks of wishful thinking and none of the marks of being grounded in facts. Kinda reminds me of the fantasies of Matthew Fox and kindred spirits towards the other end of the pole.
#5 by Jack Wayne on September 8, 2010 - 2:07 pm
Quote
While it may be sort of far fetched (with some wishful thinking thrown in), I think the last fifty+ years have shown that nothing is really that “out there.” I imagine that if you’d asked someone in the 1950′s to predict what the Mass would be like in 50 years time, I doubt they would have come up with anything close to what actually occurred.
I think if I were to make a more conservative prediction, it would be that the Novus Ordo will regain some traditional elements as options while the Tridentine Mass will become more common (by this I mean that more churches will have one on the Sunday schedule while others might not regularly offer it, but trot it out for special occasions).
#6 by Bill deHaas on September 8, 2010 - 11:09 am
Quote
Agree, Karl. Just think the the tsunami of the southern hemisphere church and its impact over the next 50 years. Doubt that the curial sources even understand this.
#7 by C H Edwards on September 8, 2010 - 11:14 am
Quote
If that’s true, I’ll be 97 when everything is entirely clear. I don’t expect still to be editing this blog. – awr
What, Father Ruff? Have you no more faith in the stability of PrayTell than in that of the Novus Ordo?
#8 by Michael O'Connor on September 8, 2010 - 12:57 pm
Quote
Don’t forget that the Southern Tsunami will be tempered by Evangelic Protestant defections.
#9 by J. Thomas on September 8, 2010 - 1:55 pm
Quote
Are such comments the miopia of group-think inside the Vatican walls? Millions of gobal catholics aren’t simply going to return to pre-consiliar worship, even in a 50 year time span…Nor would I. I don’t doubt Vatican congregations would try to shape liturgy in such a direction (as it seems they already are) but it seems to me that doing so in any dramatic manner would inevitably lead to a congflagration that would dwarf what happened with the Lefebvrist.
#10 by Karl Liam Saur on September 8, 2010 - 2:06 pm
Quote
I suspect the predictions are not widely shared even within the Vatican’s walls. Nay, even by the Pope himself, who has not shown an inclination as Pope to dabble in that kind of thing.
Even bishops with a relatively conservative liturgical praxis will have a strong bias against the kind of liturgical overhaul the dreamers dream of. Even if they were all appointed by Benedict XVI. The kind of optimism that supported the digestion of the conciliar reforms has been stomped out, and that kind of optimism is necessary from an organizational perspective to support that kind of effort, even if it were going in a different direction. The slandering of the conciliar reforms all but ensures that the climate needed to move them in the direction of these dreamers will be further removed….
#11 by J. Thomas on September 8, 2010 - 3:55 pm
Quote
I too think the organizational “optimism” or belief in authority in order to carry out a large ecclesial agenda no longer exists and may never again. Thus I’ve always wondered if the roman church could ever again have a council that was “received” in any meaningful way.
I assume that any liturgical promotion is piecemeal…which is the only way it could be, if the dreamers actually believe in their supposed “organic” theory. No radical interventions, unless the Council and the Rites of the past 40 years are the exceptions to their own theory?
#12 by Jack Wayne on September 8, 2010 - 5:06 pm
Quote
I have seen in some online forums of discussion the notion of “reforming” the OF not by getting rid of options or radically altering it right away, but by adding traditional options to what we already have.
One “reversion” that I think could easily be pulled off without causing widespread revolt would be to simply restore the old seasonal names to the calendar. I doubt that many people would dearly miss Ordinary Time, and might even like a return to “time after Pentecost” since it sounds so much more meaningful and important than “Ordinary Time.”
And yes, I know what the real meaning behind the name “Ordinary Time,” but it sure sounds dull and unimportant when compared to “Pentecost.” Septuagesima might be tougher sell, but it could happen. It could probably only be restored in name only.
#13 by J. Thomas on September 8, 2010 - 5:45 pm
Quote
@ Jack Wayne
I have little interest in the Tridentine liturgy myself. “Good” liturgy of the reformed books, yes. So I don’t understand why it would mean anything to change the calendar. The goal of reforming it was to restore elements of the calendar that bore witness to the paschal mystery in time…yes, “ordinary”or even ordinal may have little meaning as a tag. But Septuagesima? Would it needlessly detract from Lent, which certainly has more to say about initiation and the paschal mystery at the heart of the liturgical year? Why cloud the ensential nature of each season with poor labels, or worse yet, re-introduce historical accretions that degrade the integrity of the seasons. Some of our sacramentaries had weeks after holy angels, why not that for “traditions” sake. I would argue that even tradition is subservient to the point of liturgy itself.
#14 by Anthony Ruff, OSB on September 8, 2010 - 5:55 pm
Quote
Agreed on the purpose of the reform – especially on your last statement that tradition is subservient to the point of the liturgy.
But I don’t like the term “Ordinary Time” – it’s the wrong ‘register’ and has the wrong connotations. I’m disappointed that we won’t be gettnig a better translation such as “of the church year” or “of the liturgical year” or “of the year.”
awr
#15 by Jack Wayne on September 8, 2010 - 6:13 pm
Quote
But what is so great about Ordinary Time? It doesn’t “bear witness to the paschal mystery in time.” It just comes off as a bunch of “other Sundays” that can be shoehorned in between the seasons that move around. Last Sunday was the 23rd Sunday in Ordinary Time – what that does indicate in relation to the liturgical year other than we’ve had 23 Sundays that weren’t part of Advent, Christmas, Lent, or Easter? The Mass I attended was for the 15th Sunday After Pentecost – a name that very clearly relates to the other seasons in a meaningful way.
As for Septuagesima – I did say it would be more difficult to reinstate, but even that “season” shows more of a relationship to the other seasons than Ordinary time does regardless of whether or not we were to return to the practice of suppressing the Gloria and using purple for those Sundays.
I’d even prefer something like what Fr. Anthony suggests (basically a more literal translation of Tempus Per Annum), since even though it doesn’t relate to the other seasons, it at least doesn’t sound as wrong.
The only bad thing about time after Pentecost/Epiphany seems to be that it comes from the old Missal – at least that’s how it comes off. I think the notion that the old Mass has nothing whatsoever to offer the new Mass is ridiculous – it makes no more sense than those rad trad types who think the pre-1955 Missal must be enshrined forever as-is and that Vatican II had nothing to offer it.
#16 by Jack Wayne on September 8, 2010 - 6:33 pm
Quote
I should also note that I didn’t care one way or another about Septuagesima until I attended a Byzantine Catholic Church for what they called Cheesefare Sunday – traditionally the last day one can eat cheese before Lent begins, but where the fast apparently is only now optional (meaning it’s more of a pre-Lent Sunday/season in name-only, I suppose). Having a pre-Lent Season that roughly corresponds to what the other Catholic rites as well as the Orthodox (and even some protestants who, despite using the three-year lectionary still use the old season names – like the Lutherans) are doing might not be a bad thing.
It might also be nice if the OF and EF calendars shared at least a little more unity without having to essentially obliterate one in favor of the other. This might be nice for the increasing number of churches that celebrate both forms.
#17 by J. Thomas on September 8, 2010 - 7:26 pm
Quote
I hear what you’re saying Jack and Fr. regarding Ordinary Time. I guess I always experienced it as a time when the sacredness of the everyday came to the fore and was part of the sanctification of time as well as other more “theologically driven” seasons. I never experienced it as a lack but a sign of the sanctification of more natural rythms. To that end, I would be interested in some rogation days which would more emphatically address the cycles of nature and the sacramentality of the cosmos in the liturgy of the church. While we are not very agrarian any longer we are still sacramental and therefore invested in the natural.
#18 by Todd Flowerday on September 8, 2010 - 2:17 pm
Quote
The 1570/1962 Missal has nothing to offer the modern Roman Rite. And liturgical traditionalists see very little fruitfulness in an expanded Lectionary, restored catechumenates and diaconates, etc.. It strikes me that there is much wishful thinking that the TLM will matter in a way some thought it did a century ago. But if that were true, there would be a clarion call to reform the TLM in another fifty years. More likely, we’ll continue to see the aftermath of damaged unity in all this.
I wonder if the Southern Tsunami is wishful thinking as well. Third World cultures are getting swallowed up by western corporatism. Long-lasting religious traditions are still viewed with suspicion by the Catholic hierarchy. And Liturgiam Authenticam is explicit in its distrust of vernaculars outside the colonial powers.
I expect we’ll have an MR4, translated, and in place by 2060. The promoters of the hermeneutic of obstruction, by this tragic translation process, have poisoned the well of reform, short-term. Too many people are too weary to even think about liturgical reform these days. The bishops, surely, won’t want to touch it.
My hope is that we’ll have moved beyond the financial and sex scandals of the twenties by then.
#19 by Jack Wayne on September 8, 2010 - 3:05 pm
Quote
You said “liturgical traditionalists see very little fruitfulness in an expanded Lectionary, restored catechumenates and diaconates, etc..”
I’m not so sure that’s completely true. I’m a liturgical traditionalist (at least in the context of this blog – though it’s not difficult to be too traditional here), and I see value in all those things and wouldn’t mind them being applied in a logical way to the EF. I think Fr. Allen has also said he’d be down with using the new lectionary at the EF, and it’s a sentiment I’ve seen expressed by some traddy types. I’ve even seen permanent deacons at EF Masses, so they must not be too reviled except maybe in rad-trad land.
Also, I think it’s difficult to really know what importance the EF will have in the future (if any). It was suppressed for so long that it isn’t really on the radar for a lot of people and is only just beginning to emerge again as a part of Catholic life. When the old Mass isn’t ghettoized (and is instead placed in a normal parish setting), it attracts a much wider variety of people – even people who have no problem with the standard OF.
#20 by Jeffrey Pinyan on September 8, 2010 - 6:50 pm
Quote
+JMJ+
Why does the E.F. have nothing to offer the modern Roman Rite? Because everything in it that isn’t already in the modern Roman Rite has already been infallibly determined to be a useless duplication or unfortunate accretion?
#21 by Chris Owens on September 8, 2010 - 7:33 pm
Quote
Right, Todd… I would love to see you go and try to re-construct the OF strictly from the rubrics.
The reality is that you couldn’t, without reference to traditions which came from what some would argue as the “over-rubricalization” of the EF.
#22 by Todd Flowerday on September 8, 2010 - 8:31 pm
Quote
Not my role to re-construct. The modern Roman Rite has Christ preached, a Trinitarian faith, and can draw on the best of both Latin and vernacular music. Nothing worthwile in the TLM is unique to it, and much of that may not be necessarily original to it.
#23 by Chris Owens on September 8, 2010 - 9:10 pm
Quote
Sorry– I guess I didn’t make my point clearly…
My point was that you can’t treat the OF as if it’s in a vacuum. The OF is dependent upon the EF with regards to all of the rubrics that are missing in the new Mass.
The new Mass presumes a prior knowledge, at least of “traditions” that come from the EF. Without it, one couldn’t properly “do” the [new] Mass.
#24 by Sean Whelan on September 8, 2010 - 9:45 pm
Quote
Oh, I don’t know about that. Don’t forget what the REAL tradition of the Church is – what the early Christians did. The OF is far more in line with that then the EF is.
Regarding the main topic, start to bring back and meld parts of the EF with the OF and you will have found a really sure fire way to clear out Catholic pews.
#25 by Todd Flowerday on September 8, 2010 - 10:09 pm
Quote
“The new Mass presumes a prior knowledge, at least of “traditions” that come from the EF. Without it, one couldn’t properly “do” the [new] Mass.”
Okay.
The Roman Rite was reformed in the 1960′s. To be crude, we sucked all the good stuff out of the TLM with MR1. What’s left that will help us that we haven’t already used? Nothing that I see. In fact, I’d say it would be better to move in the opposite direction: Rome should gather prayers composed in the vernacular for universal use, and outfit the Sacramentary to a better harmony with a three-year Lectionary cycle.
#26 by F C Bauerschmidt on September 9, 2010 - 7:28 am
Quote
Todd,
You seem to be presuming some sort of omniscience on the part of the reformers — i.e. that they could infallibly know exactly what was good in the EF as they set about reforming it. But I think it is certainly arguable that some things were discarded or changed that we might now rethink. For example, I think the discarding of the traditional orations for the Sundays of Advent was a mistake. I am also somewhat dubious about the discarding of the traditional offertory prayers and think they could at least be allowed ad libitum. I also think an argument can be made that some form of the traditional prayers at the foot of the altar (perhaps with only a single Confetior) could be an option for the opening rite in Masses without music (the OF opening rite strikes me as a bit abrupt without singing). Perhaps you’re just being polemical, but don’t let polemic lead you to overstate the case.
#27 by Todd Flowerday on September 9, 2010 - 8:27 am
Quote
Fritz, I will grant you some of these items are debatable. But no more so than well-considered innovations. To look at one thing you mention, I think a non-musical entrance rite is solved better with a generous silence at the penitential rite and before the opening prayer than the addition of more words from the priest. The pre-conciliar fix-it attitude was that if the recipe wasn’t working, just add something to it. It might be that the instinct to prune is generally a wiser one than to graft.
And yes, I will admit I’m engaging in a bit of rabbinical exaggeration to suggest the TLM has nothing to offer the Roman Rite. On the other hand, we still have some 1962 baggage I’d like to get rid of: “quiet” Masses, the four-hymn sandwich, inappropriately rich vestments, and the one-year cycle for ordinary time presidential prayers. To name a few.
#28 by Natalie Cornell on September 8, 2010 - 3:01 pm
Quote
I think what happened in the German Church will happen here. I have no desire to go back to a preVatican II Church in any way shape or form. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if people just gave the present answers as usual. Why do these people in Rome want to go backwards? Did they forget that the Vatican II council was called because people were voting with their feet and leaving the Church? No, the Holy Spirit doesn’t go backwards.
#29 by Jack Wayne on September 8, 2010 - 3:56 pm
Quote
You said “Did they forget that the Vatican II council was called because people were voting with their feet and leaving the Church?”
Was the Church losing members prior to Vatican II? I ask this in all seriousness. Every statistic I’ve ever seen has indicated that the Church was actually pretty healthy prior to the council. I think there was a decline in Europe, but it would seem to be attributable to WWII rather than the state of Catholic liturgy – did the European Church get healthier after the council?
#30 by Jeffrey Pinyan on September 8, 2010 - 6:40 pm
Quote
+JMJ+
How do we know that the Holy Spirit has gone in the same direction as us all this time? How do we know the Holy Spirit doesn’t go backwards? How do we know that the direction which seems backwards to us isn’t forwards to the Holy Spirit?
I’m not saying we’re in the same position as post-Solomon Israel, but do you realize that the prophets who spoke to Northern and Southern Israel were saying “turn around and come back to God”?
#31 by Bill deHaas on September 8, 2010 - 4:17 pm
Quote
J. Thomas – good point.
Jack – Fr. Anthony had asked for this type of data earlier on another thread. My experience is that sociological data is few and far between and can be suspect given the methodology, who is being polled, who is counting, etc.
Others are wiser than me but from a big picture:
- Vatican II bishops understood that catholicism was changing and that liturgy needed to address this – were there less or more catholics? probably an honest answer is that it varied by locality, nation, etc.
- most experts would say that Vatican II did impact the average western catholics stance on following authority – did this impact attendance?
- most experts would say that the western church and attendance was most impacted by Humanae Vitae which addressed a topic that Paul VI did not allow the council to discuss. So, we know attendance was impacted by a papal decision that had no connection to Vatican II.
#32 by J. Thomas on September 8, 2010 - 6:04 pm
Quote
Anecdotally, I had family members leave the church because of the Latin liturgy and HV. When the liturgy was reformed they came back in time. Not so much with the HV crowd.
I wonder if the numbers didn’t drop until after the council. Not as a cause and effect, but the council actually reacted to the “signs of the time” before their full impact. They saw the wave before it crashed. If one reads the interventions of bishops during the discussion of SC there is much concern over unfolding cultural trends, from bishops across the globe. Its unfortunate that these documents have yet to translated from the Latin. They have much food for thought in framing how to interpret the will of the council.
#33 by JD Kabel on September 8, 2010 - 5:33 pm
Quote
Don’t forget that should Benedict be graced with a few more years, the SSPX will most certainly be reconciled, with not only faculties restored, but more than likely also clothed in the armor of an Apostolic Administration.
Bishop Fellay and his successors will certainly be standing athwart history yelling “Stop!”
The “southern tsunami” doesn’t stand a chance.
#34 by CM Barrett on September 8, 2010 - 9:56 pm
Quote
Vatican II makes possible conversion from protestantism. RCIA is great. Clear, orthodox presentation is a must. As a recent convert I must say I am very happy with the church as I have found it.
#35 by Jack Rakosky on September 8, 2010 - 10:32 pm
Quote
In terms of organizational efficiency, effectiveness and resources, the following suggest themselves.
1. By the next pontificate, it will be clear that bishops have the same authority over the EF in their diocese as they have over parishes, and that appeals to Rome about suppression of the EF will have about as much chance as appeals on suppression of parishes.
2. In general Rome and the bishops will be looking to selected religious orders to provide for the needs of the EF through monasteries, retreat houses, and parishes staffed by these orders. (IF the SSPX returns they will be a part of this). Most priests and bishops are not going to want to have the antagonism evident in many of the discussions on this blog in their parishes. How much the EF grows will depend in large part how much these religious orders grow.
3. The next logical place to focus upon in OF reform is a sung ordinary at most weekend Masses. The Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei were the hallmark of the sung Mass. In restoring a common Catholic ritual culture, here is easy place to begin. In recovering the heritage of Latin and of chant, the sung Ordinary is the efficient place to do it. If you want people (including children) to participate more, this is the place. A lot of efficiency here, not many resources required.
4. Slow progress on better hymns and a few Propers if choirs continue to become led by more paid professionals.
#36 by Todd Flowerday on September 9, 2010 - 6:51 am
Quote
“The next logical place to focus upon in OF reform is a sung ordinary at most weekend Masses.”
Except for the Credo, all of these have been sung at Roman Rite parishes for decades. You might mean singing them in Latin, but aside from international gatherings, what’s the point? Better for us to work on more artistic musical settings of these.
The bishops in 2008 suggested a better harmonization between the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. That kind of approach may brush aside a sacred cow or two here or there, but it addresses more of the core of where reform should be heading, had we a healthier hierarchy.
#37 by Jack Wayne on September 9, 2010 - 7:52 am
Quote
Maybe we need to clarify what what we’re all talking about when we say “sung ordinary.” To me that implies singing the whole ordinary – not just the “Mass parts” (like the Gloria). Most people are aware of what is sung at a typical OF parish on Sunday, so I assumed that Other Jack was referring to a Mass where the dialogues and priest prayers are sung in addition to the “Mass parts.”
#38 by Anthony Ruff, OSB on September 9, 2010 - 8:20 am
Quote
Jack -
The term “Ordinary” is still used occasionally in GIRM and postconciliar chant books, so I don’t totally reject it. But for the most part it’s not a helpful term to understand the structure of the reformed (or old, but that’s another story) liturgy. “Sing to the Lord” is helpful as it walks through the parts of the Mass, pretty much following GIRM and making explicit its musical implications. To put Kyrie, Gloria, Credo on same level isn’t helpful. It’s more helpful to look at, eg. Introductory Rites and what is best sung in a given season for a particular community. An example (not the only possible) would be to sing only the Gloria during Ordinary Time since the Introductory Rites are just that – introductory – and shouldn’t take longer than the Liturgy of the Word. Then one might chant the Kyrie during Advent and Lent when there is no Gloria. The Credo – it’s better to call it the Profession of Faith as the Missal does – could be sung or recited based on how a community best responds to the homily in the act of faith and reaffirmation of baptism, not because the ‘Credo’ is part of a fixed Ordinary. And so forth.
For the record, I personally prefer singing the Kyrie (or some part of the Penitential Act – remember that Kyrie is not part of every Mass in the same form) in a simple chant setting every Sunday and I don’t think that weighs down the Introductory Rites or competes with a following festive Gloria.
awr
#39 by Todd Flowerday on September 9, 2010 - 8:39 am
Quote
Jack W, the sung ordinary, as I understand it, is a musical construction made up of liturgical elements. If my parish isn’t singing the Credo, are we automatically just singing “Mass parts”? My parish sings acclamations at sacramental rites–just as indicated in the rituals. We sing the mystery of faith also. I would submit that’s far more in keeping with the liturgical demands of the rite than a choir singing a five-movement classical piece interspersed within the Eucharist.
#40 by Jack Wayne on September 9, 2010 - 11:31 pm
Quote
Todd, perhaps you should avoid false dichotomies, or of ascribing positions to me that have no basis in what I have written. A “five-movement classical piece interspersed within the Eucharist” isn’t what people are proposing when they say they want a “sung ordinary.”
I was operating under the impression that a fully sung ordinary is basically is what Jack R. describes below: where all the unchanging parts of the Mass are sung/chanted – this includes way more than the Kyrie, Gloria, Santus, Agnus Dei, Great Amen, Memorial Acclimation, and the oft-neglected Credo. This is really very rare in most churches (and I’m not ignoring what Fr Anthony and others have written on the matter – I’m simply stating what I meant in my prior comments).
#41 by Jack Rakosky on September 9, 2010 - 11:33 am
Quote
My definition of the Ordinary includes the invariant sung parts: Dialogues, Kyrie, Gloria, Alleluia, Creed, Prayer of Faithful Response, Sanctus, Our Father, Agnus Dei.
IMO The fundamental “problem” of the OF is that its many options provide little sense of an overall ritual framework. Liturgy is ritual, the same thing (with small variations). It is not entertainment, the creation of theme Masses organized around the readings or the needs of the community or religious education objectives.
IMO a large part of the attractiveness of the EF is its ritual invariance, its strong sense of being the same thing. A large part of the motivation for the present translation appears to be to have a greater sense of ritual throughout the Mass. Both of these investments in trying to restore a greater sense of ritual are very expensive and costly in many ways, and likely ineffective.
The easiest way to introduce a stronger sense of ritual predictability into the OF is to emphasize a Sung Ordinary. The Kyrie is rarely sung, many times the Gloria is recited. The Creed has never been sung in my memory since the Council. The Lord’s Prayer is usually not sung.
All the little ad hoc decisions “how should we do the penitential rite today” “the creed as a response to today’s homily” “the Our Father needs to be said by everyone” are destroying ritual predictability.
As Taft says liturgy is ritual and the people have the RIGHT to not be surprised and confused.
#42 by Anthony Ruff, OSB on September 9, 2010 - 6:14 pm
Quote
OK – we have differences in our use of basic terms here. “Ordinary” generally means Kyrie-Gloria-Credo-Sanctus-Agnus, and “Order of Mass” is all the unchanging texts of the Mass, whether spoken or sung, starting with the Sign of Cross and Greeting. Apparently you have your own meaning of “Ordinary, ” including which parts of the Order of Mass belong to it because they are sung. I don’t think anyone else had your meaning in mind, so we’ve all been talking past each other on this entire thread. I now realize that I’ve missed your meaning all the way through.
awr
#43 by Jack Rakosky on September 10, 2010 - 9:09 am
Quote
Fr Anthony,
Yes there may not be a convenient term that identifies the invariant parts of the Mass that are and/or could be sung by the people. One of the limitations of 1500 characters and talking across disciplinary boundaries.
However as I pointed out to Paul below the issue of the possible unintended consequences of progressive solemnity upon church attendance are too important to not reconsider having greater solemnity in Ordinary Time.
Likewise, the low “solemnity” or “ritual” character” of many of the OF masses appears to be an underlying issue for “reformers”, e.g. the use of the EF and Missal language. So coming up with widely acceptable ideas of how to increase “solemnity” or “ritual” would contribute to the unity of the Church.
Identifying a set of invariant parts that would always be sung by the people would greatly increase the participation of the people, including as I recently remarked on another thread, the participation of children. Bishop Untener who did take some time to record and analyze videotapes of the Mass established how little the congregation has to do at Mass: http://www.npm.org/Articles/Ritual&Community.pdf
This proposed focus is based very much upon the ease with which it could be done. No changes in law, mandates, new missals, Latin, etc.
Increasing Mass attendance and greater peace and unity in the Church are big goals IMO. Greater solemnity may help, and might be easily achieved.
#44 by Jack Wayne on September 8, 2010 - 10:40 pm
Quote
I’ve never understood the obsession with trying to do “what the early Christians did” – I fail to see how this is somehow a more “authentic” form of tradition. Pretending 500+ years of liturgy didn’t exist (or was dirty or bad) doesn’t seem at all traditional. Tradition develops over time – it isn’t what we speculatively recreate based on what people might have done 2000 years ago.
Also, do you have any real experience with the EF? And how would adding some of the EF’s characteristics to the OF “clear out Catholic pews?” This is anecdotal, but I’ve never personally met anyone over 40 who had a big problem with it other than it being in Latin – some folks I know even say they would like the EF a lot (maybe even prefer it to the OF) if it were in English with the three-year lectionary and perhaps an allowance for lay readers and communion under both kinds (which are things I imagine would be in a “synthesized” Missal). Deciding that anything from the EF is bad and will destroy the Church just seems bizarre to me. Do you really think people would leave in droves if the old offertory prayers or prayers at the foot of the altar were restored?
#45 by Father Allan J. McDonald on September 9, 2010 - 4:29 am
Quote
Jack, I agree with you. If we had the EF Mass in English with the OF lectionary and people understood the theology of the silence of it, the repetition, the reason for the prayers at the foot of the altar (which indeed evolved from private prayers the priest said prior to the Mass, with the Mass actually beginning for the laity at the introit and Kyrie) then I think everyone who appreciates our OF Mass would have few problems with the EF Mass. But certainly the OF Mass developed from a perspective of clearing out accretions that were not in the Mass in the first six centuries. So in a sense the current OF Mass is closer to what most Christians experienced on Sunday in antiquity. I’m glad that we are at a stage in our modern Catholicism where we can appreciate the “noble simplicity of the OF Mass celebrated well” and the EF Mass with its complexity celebrated well. Does it really have to be either/or? Can’t it be both/and? I think our Catholic people can appreciate both forms, respect the two even though they might have their own particular preference. And finally, it is Our Risen Lord we’re celebrating and receiving in both and what He has accomplished for us. We’re seeing an evolution now, what it will be 50 years from now I’ll enjoy in heaven if I am so blessed.
#46 by Todd Flowerday on September 9, 2010 - 6:55 am
Quote
But the 1962 Missal still needs reform.
“Can’t it be both/and?”
Depending on your perspective, Rome has said no. Twelve years in the English-speaking wilderness and no MR2. I don’t see why a backwater liturgical form would get priority over a translation approved by every English-speaking bishops’ conference. It’s hard to see how this might not be about money and influence rather than the best intentions for good and prayerful liturgy.
#47 by Jack Wayne on September 9, 2010 - 7:15 am
Quote
So I guess that means the Church can only do one thing at a time – work on an English translation of the OF *or* reform and encourage the EF a bit.
The statement about money and power made no sense to me, were you referring to people who promote the EF or the new translation?
#48 by Todd Flowerday on September 9, 2010 - 8:33 am
Quote
Well, my position would be that Catholicism could stand for more diversity within an overarching unity. The current curia seems to be very selective in its own approach to the principles of liturgical reform. Accuracy when it suits. Catering to whims of special interest groups when it suits. It all seems rather random, if not incompetent.
For the record, I don’t think the Low Mass version of the 1962 Rite should be permitted at all. The modern Roman rite has, imo, too much baggage from it as it is. That would be one influence I’d rather we minimize.
#49 by Father Allan J. McDonald on September 9, 2010 - 9:08 am
Quote
I don’t want to be misunderstood as all of the Sunday Masses in our parish are sung with two of them more festive or solemn than the rest and daily Mass we sing the alleluia, Sanctus, Mystery of faith, Great Amen and Agnus Dei (without accompaniment). But one of the criticisms that I experience in my parish is that we don’t have a quiet Mass. These are allowed in the technical sense. In the EF, the delineation between low, sung and solemn sung is very clear in terms of the actual Mass, although four hymns could be added to a low Mass on Sunday. In the OF Mass, there is a Mass with music and Mass with no music. The Mass with music allows for the flexibility Fr. Anthony describes above based upon season, parish ability, etc. We have options galore, why not use them in parishes that have multiple Masses including a silent (meaning no singing) Mass if that is a tradition in a particular parish?
#50 by Jack Wayne on September 9, 2010 - 7:36 am
Quote
Contrary to how I might come off at this blog, I’m more of a both/and sort of person. I probably attend the OF more than the EF (though, lately it’s been almost 50/50), and don’t begrudgingly attend the OF or “offer it up” as penance or anything like that. I find that attending both has worked wonders for my prayer life.
My enthusiasm for the EF comes from how important it was in my “reversion.” I never really fell away from the Church, but went for several years just going at Christmas and Easter (because attending Mass is what you’re supposed to do on major holidays) and not really valuing the Mass. Exposure to traditional materials and the old Mass changed my perception of the OF and actually made me appreciate it more. I’ve met others who are in the same boat, so the idea that the EF has absolutely nothing to offer – or might even be dangerous or divisive – doesn’t fly with with me. If anything, I think the bitterness of traditionalists and divisiveness supposedly caused by them would be non-existent had the Church made real provisions for traditional worship 40 years ago. It’s no wonder why the Episcopalians and Lutherans allowed for a lot of traditional options when they revised their liturgical books when one looks at how the Catholic liturgical renewal worked out.
I’ve also met people who came back to the Church because of contemporary worship or even things like LifeTeen, so I wouldn’t really go out my way to deny that to them.
#51 by Brendan Kelleher SVD on September 9, 2010 - 6:36 am
Quote
I find it ironic that the EF, which in its immediate post-Trent form was considered an interim form, calls for reform were considered in the context of the ongoing protestant reforms as inopportune, has become almost the gold standard in some quarters.
I write from outside of the US/European, and consequently possibly narrow vision of what a world Church should look like, but would like to make just one small observation. As I look through recent editions of the Catholic Handbook for Japan, I see no evidence of any felt need for or response to a possible need for provision for the EF. Instead there is a need for increased provision of the Eucharist in languages as diverse as Spanish and Korean or Vietnamese. Some Bishops I have spoken to have confirmed my impressions.
What will the face of the Church be fifty years from now? Will increased provision of the EF or some mongrelized fusion of the EF and the OF be the most appropriate response to the needs of that Church. Thirty odd years of missionary/pastoral work in Asia makes me doubt the viability of the latter option.
#52 by Jack Wayne on September 9, 2010 - 7:06 am
Quote
I wouldn’t really expect there to be a major call for the EF in areas that are mission territory. People can’t really want something they don’t know about.
#53 by Ian Williams on September 9, 2010 - 6:43 am
Quote
That begs the question of the relationship between the Council and the Mass of Paul VI. to the extent that you believe it to be a flawed implementation of the Council’s liturgical texts, so you could consider it an exception that proves the rule.
#54 by Jeff Rice on September 9, 2010 - 6:55 am
Quote
I do find it interesting that the most fervent supporters of the OF proudly claim that it reclaims the worship of the earliest Christians (ie, it goes way back), but balk at the notion of reinstating any elements of the EF because that would be “going backwards”.
Fr. McDonald asks “Does it really have to be either/or? Can’t it be both/and?” I think in the long run there needs to be one form. The two current forms are fundamentally different. If we believe “lex orandi, lex credendi” we may be solidifying two parallel churches within the Church. How long will this last?
I think the above prognostication might be a bit extreme. But some sort of assimilation must take place to restore unity. The EF clearly does not jive with many of the reformed principles of worship of Vatican 2. The OF obviously has many issues that prevent it from fully serving all the faithful. I believe that a beautiful, well-done, well-implemented single revised Roman missal could radically heal the Church and set it on a better course. Just not sure if the Church is capable of such a thing at this time.
#55 by Father Allan J. McDonald on September 9, 2010 - 7:36 am
Quote
Jeff, there are many cities and towns out there that have Latin Rite Catholics coexisting with Eastern Rite Catholics. There is cross pollination in those towns and cities. Latin Rite Catholics attending Divine Liturgy on any given Sunday, but preferring their own rite for the majority of the time and the opposite is true as well. We really can exist as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church with many rites and expressions of an official liturgy. In the Latin Rite we now have the Anglican Use which brings richness to the Western Rite and expands Latin Rite to include a truly Anglicized Rite. Does there really have to be one rite for all the Catholics of the West and the East? I think not and evidently the Baptized people of God think not too.
#56 by Jeff Rice on September 9, 2010 - 9:33 am
Quote
I stand by my belief that how we worship directly effects what we believe. How much division in practice and belief can occur within before the Church breaks apart? My view is that unity trumps personal preference. The easy way is to allow everyone to just do their own thing. The Church should put its energy into the much more difficult work of reconciliation and creating a Roman Rite that gives all the faithful a chance to enter into liturgical prayer. If we can’t agree on unified public prayer, what is the point of a universal Church?
#57 by Sean Whelan on September 9, 2010 - 11:29 pm
Quote
Well, we can argue all we want on here, but the People of God have the final say, like it or not.
I would really like to see the documentation from V2 that hinted at two seperate rites coexisting in the Roman Catholic Church. If the pope wants to write up a little motu proprio, fine, but don’t rewrite history.
In our diocese, we have 80 parishes, and only 1 has decided to offer the EF. The priest was raised a Methodist and is too young to have attended a pre-V2 liturgy. The church is perhaps half full for this Mass in which everyone in the diocese is invited to. Families that have been in the parish for over 100 years are leaving and going to other churches (many not Catholic) because of the continual power play that the EF folks make.
I see no real future for the EF – and with the increased education that will take place with the 3rd edition of the Missal, people will become more engaged with the OF (translation aside). And if by some bizarre reason the EF makes some big comeback, you will find many people leaving.
#58 by Jack Wayne on September 9, 2010 - 11:47 pm
Quote
What “power plays” do the EF folks make that negatively affect the families of that parish to the point that they leave? I’m genuinely curious as it would have to be pretty extreme – the EF folks would have to be doing something that affects the OF Sunday Masses.
Also, it would seem that if the People of God have the final say, then at least some of them have said they want the EF – or are EF folks not counted among God’s people?
As for documentation from Vatican II in support of the motu proprio – I would ask why it matters to have such a thing?
#59 by Kimberly Hope Belcher on September 10, 2010 - 10:06 pm
Quote
If we believe “lex orandi, lex credendi” we may be solidifying two parallel churches within the Church. How long will this last?
I think this is our modern, and not particularly Christian, “there must be one way” attitude speaking. After all, not only are there Eastern rite and Latin rite Christians, but there are also four gospels. The early church chose, in liturgy and in scripture, to be enriched by variety. We have done the same, and we do not yet know what it will lead to.
For me, the most telling alteration is not the availability of two Roman mass forms, but the availability of two fundamentally different forms for Christian baptism practiced in the same ecclesial group and intended to have the same ecclesial effect. Now THAT is really unprecedented in Christian history.
#60 by Jack Rakosky on September 11, 2010 - 6:59 am
Quote
I agree with Kimberly that the diversity of the OF and EF does not cause theoretical problems.
Look at the many diverse ways that religious life has been observed from the desert solitaries to the Benedictine communal traditions to the Jesuit-like active orders and much more.
However the OF/EF will cause practical administrative problems within parishes and dioceses which is why I made the prediction above that the care of the EF will migrate to religious orders. And/or if SPXX is reconciled, it may become a personal prelature like Opus Dei or an Ordinate like the Anglican solution.
It is just an administrative problem about how to organize and manage personnel and resources efficiently and effectively.
There is a long history in religious life of the solitaries and community people as well as the actives and the contemplatives arguing about which is the “greater.” It started with the apostles. So the argument about which the greater the OF or EF is likely to continue.
We will survive.
#61 by Jeffrey Pinyan on September 11, 2010 - 8:34 am
Quote
+JMJ+
Having only a rudimentary knowledge of the older and newer rites of Baptism, could you explain how it is that they differ fundamentally?
#62 by Kimberly Hope Belcher on September 11, 2010 - 10:57 am
Quote
Sure, Jeffrey. I perhaps will make a long post for the long version, but the short version is this: before Vatican II, we had only one rite of baptism for all to be initiated (adults or children). Now we have (at least) two (depending on how you think about the initiation of children above the age of reason and other partial rites). Both initiate catechumens into the Church and the body of Christ, but they differ according to the circumstances and life of the one to be initiated (most radically whether the initiand is an infant or an adult). In the early church infants, children, and adults were initiated according to a rite that looks to us like an “adult” rite; in the medieval and modern church infants, children, and adults were initiated according to a rite that looks to us like an “infant” rite. Now we have both functioning simultaneously, according to (our perception of) the needs of the one being initiated.
We did this because of our (modern) viewpoint, recovering Thomas Aquinas and other premodern thinkers, that sacrament needs to speak to its participants in a way that they can hear. (This is, of course, in a different way the motivation for the vernacular, but it’s a theoretical principle. People can differ on its application without disputing the principle.) Although this principle is ancient, this application is unprecedented.
#63 by Jeffrey Pinyan on September 11, 2010 - 3:56 pm
Quote
+JMJ+
Yes, I’d appreciate a fuller treatment in a longer post.
What I’ve seen in the English translation of the Roman Ritual of 1964 is that there was a baptismal rite for infants which was, more or less, an abridged form of the baptismal rite for adults. There was also the baptismal rite for adults, which was changed in April of 1962 to have seven stages, although I think it was only an option for adult baptism, not the mandatory form; before that there was a long rite of baptism for adults, which was abridged to produce the rite for infants (as I just said).
I guess I wasn’t sure what you meant by “fundamentally different”.
I’ll mention, hopefully not off-topic, that I hope the future English translation of the baptismal rites restores the use of the word “renounce” instead of “reject”: “Do you renounce Satan?”, etc.
#64 by C H Edwards on September 9, 2010 - 9:57 am
Quote
Can it really be doubted that we are entering a period during which some process of “mutual enrichment” of the two existing forms of the Roman rite will take place, with the result at some future point being a single stable form of the rite (though perhaps with flexibility for leaning towards either of the two forms as we now know them, e.g., either more Latinate or more vernacular, more or less solemnity, etc.).
If so, does one who suffers a predisposition against either the OF or the EF–and thus an inability to look for the best that each can contribute to this process of organic development—not thereby circumscribe his own ability to play a constructive role in it, and even limit his own ability to worship most fruitfully in a garden of such rich and diverse liturgical treasures.
I am fortunate to know a fair number of people who are truly devoted to both forms of the Roman rite, drawing spiritual enrichment and support from both, and find no discordance in belief or worship between the two forms. I am convinced that they are better off for experiencing this liturgical diversity and richness, and that people who deprive themselves of it are worse off.
#65 by Paul Inwood on September 9, 2010 - 12:19 pm
Quote
Jack Rakosky said: IMO The fundamental “problem” of the OF is that its many options provide little sense of an overall ritual framework. Liturgy is ritual, the same thing (with small variations). It is not entertainment, the creation of theme Masses organized around the readings or the needs of the community or religious education objectives.
Several points in response to this:
(1) How do you reconcile your position with progressive solemnity? Do you feel that this principle also obscures the structure of the rite? I suggest that there is a difference between the larger macro-structure of the rite, and the smaller micro-structures contained within the larger ones. The overarching main strctural lines are what is important.
(2) Ritual is renewal as well as repetition, otherwise it stagnates and ossifies.
(3) All liturgy takes place within a culture, and it always interacts with the cultural milieu in which it situated. You may not like that, but it is the truth. To be concerned with the ambient culture only is idolatry, and your implied criticism here is well-founded, but to neglect the ambient culture is to neglect the rite itself. The sabbath was made for humans, not humans for the sabbath, and all that.
#66 by Jack Rakosky on September 10, 2010 - 7:55 am
Quote
Paul,
Progressive solemnity may be detrimental to church attendance. It may be communicating that only certain times of the year are really important.
That was the reason why in my post on July 19th on the Liturgical Year and Average Church Attendance, I called attention to the research on Protestant congregations suggesting that emphasizing the importance of certain seasons and celebrating them with higher quality services may actually be lowering average attendance in liturgical denominations.
Yes it is a big leap from data on Protestant Congregations to the practice of the Catholic Church, but the reason I signed the “What if we just said wait petition” and joined this blog, is precisely that we don’t have data on questions like this, and we appear unwilling to consult the faithful in any systematic and reliable manner to find out what is going on.
Every Christmas and Easter our churches are still overflowing. Most of the people who don’t attend church weekly still say God is very important in their lives and they pray daily. The world is not divided between weekly church goers and Christmas and Easter churchgoers, there are many people in between. Hence progressive solemnity may be telling these people when they need not come to church.
A higher degree of solemnity year around may be the motivation behind the EF, new Missal, etc. I am suggesting an easy way to satisfy this motivation, and hopefully increase church attendance.
#67 by Bill deHaas on September 9, 2010 - 1:45 pm
Quote
Brendan – appreciate your contribution. Agree completely – too often the comments here are limited by our own local situation. Can you believe that communities in Central America, South America, parts of Asia, Africa, India and their pastoral leaders would have time or energy to debate types of music, whether to make foot of the altar prayers an option, etc.
One man’s blessed accretion (e.g. foot of the altar prayer) is another’s wasteful, pietistic accretion. See Josef Jungmann and those who have written excellent liturgical histories and what resulted in the efforts of VII. Fritz – your balance is to be admired but let’s not throw the principles out with the knee jerk reactions we read here in some comments. Keep in mind – granting EF as an exception has no precedent.
Fr. Anthony – to your discourse on “ordinary time” from Eugene Kennedy:
“We talk about the quick end of summer but it actually dies slowly. We root for it as it fights, as doomed and gallantly as the defenders of the Alamo, to preserve its sunlit freedom against the assault of autumn that takes us prisoner and repatriates us to the routine days in which we live most of our lives. The sure sacramental sense of the church is nowhere more evident than in its designation of this period as ordinary time.
Ordinary time has actually been quietly with us, of course, because it refers to those parts of the liturgical year that do not fall in one of the seasons of Advent, Christmas, Lent, or Easter…
#68 by Bill deHaas on September 9, 2010 - 1:46 pm
Quote
cont…..
As homeward bound novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald gazed out of the train at the flakes drifting down on the Midwestern landscape to claim them as “our snow,” so we may claim this interval as “our time.” For Fitzgerald the snow was not a stranger but a friend in whose company he had grown up. So ordinary time, since it is most of the time in the church year, offers the comfort of an old friend with whom we can be ourselves. That is, beneath elaborated liturgical theories, the real reason that the church created ordinary time. It fits the human. It is our time, the place — as Robert Frost wrote of home — that “when you have to go there they have to take you in.”
A climb up the family tree of ordinary is quite instructive. You will not be surprised to learn that the word comes from the Latin ordo, meaning “order.” It signifies a person “not distinguished by rank or position … of low social position, as in ‘the common people.’ ” It refers to the “commonplace … the mundane … the average or normal.”
Ordinary’s richer meanings reassure us of the majesty of Ordinary time and the common people who live in it.
Its most remote root is ar which means “to fit together” and shows up in art and artist. The Latin ordiri means “to begin to weave” just as believers begin to form a church out of the cloth of their relationships. The same root, trailing its sacramental tendrils, appears in ritus, or rite, as well as in kindred;…
#69 by Bill deHaas on September 9, 2010 - 1:47 pm
Quote
cont….
“….these are foundational concepts for a people gathering to worship. This eucharistic nature of this gathering is confirmed and deepened in ordinary’s meaning as “an inn in which … food is served regularly in a community.”
Is it just a little surprising that, since it also means “the lowest class of seaman,” it should also refer to the “holder of a jurisdiction, attaching to an ecclesiastical office” — in short, the bishop of a diocese?
A bishop was also traditionally the canonical holder of “ordinary power.” He can — as the man in the Gospel story described himself to Jesus — order this man to come, and he comes, and order that man to go, and he goes. That functionary from the Gospel parable was struck, however, by the difference between his power and the authority he sensed in Jesus. Ordinary people, “average people” as we are known, instinctively understand the difference between these notions. The church has understood and approved this capacity as the “Gift of Reception” that is invested in all the average people who live in ordinary time.”
#70 by Rita Ferrone on September 9, 2010 - 2:04 pm
Quote
Bill, that Kennedy quote is wonderful! Is it published? What is the source? I’d love to see the whole thing. Thanks for sharing this.
#71 by Bill deHaas on September 9, 2010 - 2:13 pm
Quote
Borrowed from ncronline.org
Here is the link: http://ncronline.org/blogs/bulletins-human-side/ordinary-time-time-our-lives
#72 by Brendan Kelleher SVD on September 9, 2010 - 8:42 pm
Quote
My comment was dismissed by one commentator since we in Asia are a missionary church. Such patronizing comment is sad to read, and wonder if the writer thought how it would echo in the hearts of Catholics in the rest of the world. Anyone with any acquaintance with recent demographic shifts in the Catholic population, for details see the writings of Philip Jenkins or John Allen’s “The Future Church”, will be aware that the face of the Church is changing, becoming more genuinely multi-cultural. My own community now has a stronger presence in Asia than any other part of the world. The voices of Asia and Africa will in time come to shape the way we worship, making the debate about EF and OF seem parochial. Sometimes I also wonder if we aren’t seeing something like a “Tea Party” faction emerging in the Church of the northern hemisphere.
#73 by Jack Wayne on September 9, 2010 - 9:23 pm
Quote
Who was it who was dismissive and condescending?
If you are responding to me, then I would ask: How do you judge my comment as dismissive or condescending other than by what you chose to read into it? Why would Catholics who are new to the faith and liturgy want the EF when they don’t have any history of it? I imagine they aren’t clamoring for the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom either despite its vast riches. For them, the OF is it – and I never said that was good or bad (though, I fail to see how a vernacular EF with cultural adaptations would affect anyone negatively). In the west it’s a bigger issue because we actually have a very long history with the EF, and a shift in power from the West to Asia and Africa isn’t going to make that go away regardless of how parochial it is.
And maybe you could go into more detail about what your “Tea Party” comment means since I don’t wish to read into your post something very rude that you may not have meant.
#74 by Sean Whelan on September 10, 2010 - 3:42 pm
Quote
Decoration/remodeling of the worship space, insisting that parish events such as 1st Communion/Confirmation be done in the EF, hymnals, outright contempt at some folk… at 8AM, a woman can enter the sanctuary and proclaim the word. at 11AM, she has to sit in the pew with a napkin on her head.
An extreme minority has called for use of the EF.
And it absolutely matters. It was NEVER the vision of V2 to have two seperate rites coexisting. For a few to say, “well, that’s not really true” is disingenuous at best. Go ahead, issue a MP, but don’t twist history to try and shore up your opinions.
What “power plays” do the EF folks make that negatively affect the families of that parish to the point that they leave? I’m genuinely curious as it would have to be pretty extreme – the EF folks would have to be doing something that affects the OF Sunday Masses.
Also, it would seem that if the People of God have the final say, then at least some of them have said they want the EF – or are EF folks not counted among God’s people?
As for documentation from Vatican II in support of the motu proprio – I would ask why it matters to have such a thing?
#75 by Jack Wayne on September 11, 2010 - 12:12 am
Quote
So how do you foresee EF and OF people coexisting? It sounds like EF people should be seen but not heard and have no say in how their parish looks or is run. Wanting some say in decoration and hymnal purchases doesn’t seem unreasonable since they are probably contributing money towards the purchase of these things unless there is a separate “EF community” fund. Also, church decorating and remodeling can effect how practical it is to celebrate the EF. Wanting all the confirmation and first communicants of the parish to do it in the EF does sound unreasonable, but perhaps a compromise in that regard could be reached.
The example you gave for “contempt” is silly if it doesn’t effect the 8am Mass where women may still lector. You do know that laypeople – regardless of gender – can’t be lectors at the EF, right? Also, do they force women to cover their heads? I have never been to an EF where women were made to do so.
This isn’t to say that I don’t sympathize with the people who have been in the parish for a long time and don’t like this new influence. I bet it can be hard integrating a new “group” into a parish. What you describe sounds similar to what I’ve heard occurs when a Spanish Mass is added at a parish that isn’t largely Hispanic.
And to play devil’s advocate – Vatican II didn’t foresee two missals coexisting because it called for some mild reform to be done to the one already in use – what is now known as the EF. It didn’t call for a “new” missal that radically departed from the old one, so of course it didn’t make provisions for allowing the new missal to coexist with the old one.
#76 by Bill deHaas on September 10, 2010 - 3:56 pm
Quote
Well said, Brendan.
Sam – you could have added that all major conferences of bishops pleaded with the pope to not release SP.
#77 by Sean Whelan on September 10, 2010 - 4:16 pm
Quote
It’s Sean, not Sam
I did not realize the formatting error I made in that last comment. From “What ‘power plays’ do the EF folks make…” on are the words of Jack Wayne. My apologies for the goof.
#78 by Brendan Kelleher SVD on September 11, 2010 - 1:57 am
Quote
As a fairly regular visitor to Pray Tell since it started in some ways not surprised that Bill de Haas got my point but Jack Wayne didn’t.
The distinction between mission sending and mission receiving countries was probably already losing its validity before WWII. Vat.II gave a further push to recognizing that the ‘so-called’ mission countries could and should contribute to the mission of the Church. Further the Church has been present in nearly all Asian countries for over a 100 years prior to Vat. II. They welcomed the chance to inculturate the liturgy not because of a lack of acquaintance or appreciation for the EF, but because it was an idea, an opportunity they believed in.
The total Christian/Catholic population of Asia is significant, and when added to that of Africa represents a constituency that hopefully will have a voice in the future shape of the liturgy. The EF, a product of a limited historical period, and a narrow cultural base, on the basis of my own experience from over 30 years in Asia, and regular contacts with other confreres around the world, will be less influential than some presume or hope. Within the wider context of the Catholic Church around the world those who call for its wider use are a minority with a lifespan shorter than they realize, just like the Tea Party.
#79 by John Finn on September 11, 2010 - 7:39 am
Quote
It seems the EF did rather well in Vietnam and
the Philippines.
#80 by Lisa Bui on September 11, 2010 - 7:49 am
Quote
I think you’ve underestimated the success of the EF in Vietnam and the Philippines.
#81 by Brendan Kelleher SVD on September 11, 2010 - 8:16 pm
Quote
I stand by my sources, SVD confreres from the Philippines and Vietnam, and observations from recent visits made by myself and other confreres to the Philippines. Along with close to a dozen confreres my pastoral work at weekends brings me into regular contact with Filipinos here in Japan. Haven’t heard any calls for the EF from among them.
Are we seeing a grasping at straws here?
I live in a community, here in Nagoya, Japan, with members from nearly all the main Asian nations. I think they know what’s going on at the grassroots level.
With the passing of years we will see further efforts at inculturation, and the EF will not be a major point of reference, for the obvious reasons.
#82 by John Finn on September 12, 2010 - 6:07 pm
Quote
Fr. Brendan,
I think the point above was that the EF did a good job in bringing and preserving orthodox Christianity among the Vietnamese and in the Philippines despite, as you said, it being”a product of a limited historical period, and …(its) narrow cultural base.” Pastorally, you may find this interesting:
http://tplb.ecclesiadeiphilippines.org/2010/08/