Recently, Catholic World Report published an article that attempted to square the circle and identify exactly what Benedict XVI may have meant when he spoke of both “forms” needing to enrich each other. Now, I don’t know the Reverend authors intentions or his experience, but this was a seriously problematic take on every level possible; absolutely requiring a response
Adoption of the revised lectionary
Taylor Marshall has done a fantastic job addressing this: http://taylormarshall.com/2013/01/the-lectionary-of-holy-mass-one-year-vs.html http://taylormarshall.com/2015/10/catholic-mass-lectionary-omits-anti-homosexual-verses-from-romans-1.html
Incorporation of additional Mass formularies
In his book “The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy”, Adrian Fortescue addresses why the Church did not incorporate so many prefaces into the liturgy. You can click the link below to access the particulars. But also, it seams odd that here the author is so desireous of having many options, whereas later on he stresses that “Virtue stands in the middle”. I think he likes his ideas too much, making excuses and being critical of the formulation of the ancient rite when he does not have the competence to speak.
There is also a position paper from Una Voce on this:
Expand possibilities for solemnity
The EF has clearly defined categories for the celebration of Mass: Low Mass, Missa Cantata, Solemn Mass. The normative form is the Solemn Mass, wherein a full complement of ministers functions, along with incense and chant. The Low Mass (which, in the United States, unfortunately, was the most familiar and common liturgical experience) had none of those components. The Missa Cantata is an attempt to have at least some of the solemnity, even without all the desired ministers. The OF does not have such mutually exclusive categories, thus allowing for as much solemnity to be incorporated as possible. And so, even at a daily Mass with a single priest-celebrant, one can chant any and all the prayers and use incense. Regrettably, that opening is not taken advantage of very often—even on Sundays. However, it would be a good element to add to the liturgical menu of the EF.
A) The Low Mass is most common because the seminaries refuse to teach the ancient rite, so it’s the beginning point for any priest of good will. Plus, a Solemn Mass can only be said once a day by a priest. Want less Low Mass’? Encourage priests to learn and regularly say the ancient rite and to not be so obsessed with saying the “ordinary form”. Plus there is the issue of having a deacon, which is not a guarantee at any Parish, even if a second priest stands in its still rare to have two priests. Encourage vocations. We all know the current model of permanent deacons is really an ordinary form thing, whereas the societies that offer the ancient rite, the transitional deacons are way more present. The possibility for Solemnity is increasing on the ancient rite site and we know what to expect, for the Novus Ordo (outside of a handful of churches here and there) it’s a crap shoot.
B) I see no reason why we are afraid to have exclusive Mass’. When I go to a Low Mass I know what to expect and it slightly changes how I will enter into the mystery, and with the other solemnities. Having knowledge and clarity is not a bad thing. Clarity is an aspect of Beauty, formlessness is not related to beauty… consider CS Lewis’ “Till we have faces”. Plus, its not like a Low mass could not be changed to a High Mass before hand. What is listed in the bulletin is the norm (and often helpful for young families for the obvious reasons), but it can be changed with necessary considerations.
Elimination of duplicate recitations
“In the celebration of Holy Mass, the priest moves in and out of various modes: at times, he prays as one of the faithful; at other times, he prays in persona Christi Capitis… there is no theological reason for him not to pray the text in union with the whole assembly”
- What is he talking about there is no theological reason? Why do so many of these priests buy into the modernist idea that useless repetition was involved in the ancient rite? The parish and choir are invited to sing the mass at times, but this does not mean the priest should not undertake his duties to say the Mass that is put before him. His recitation is not without merit for the action. You may dislike repetition but God has no issues with hearing his word spoken again and again, anymore than God has issues with Lord have mercy said by the priest and people separately. The priest has an office separate from the laity, that they should execute the office separately when the Church has ask them to in the past is not pointless.
- Before I move on, the garbage notion that the ancient Rite had useless repetition is just that. Fr. Ripperger addressed it in an article: “The third thing that the ancient liturgy provides is repetition. Now modern man has rejected repetition because he has a fixation on novelty. Novelty, of course, gives our appetites delight but does not necessarily indicate depth. To enter into something in depth requires time and repeated considerations of a thing. Repetitio mater discendi, as we say in Latin: repetition is the mother of learning. This principle applies not only to learning but to our spiritual lives as well. By repeating a prayer, its meaning becomes more known to us and therefore is able to be entered into more perfectly and with greater depth. Since the ancient rite allows not for novelty but repetition, it provides a way in which people can focus on the mysteries present rather than the new things that are constantly popping up. With the silence quieting our faculties and the repetition that characterize each Mass, we are able to participate in and enter more perfectly into the mysteries of the Mass. Too often participation is equated with physical activity rather than the higher and more active form of participation which is spiritual participation” . Those who attend the EF will know the awkwardness of the current rubrical practice, especially when a text calls for a gesture on the part of the priest (e.g., the Sign of the Cross to end the Gloria or the genuflection during the Credo) which is not “in sync” with what is being sung because the schola/congregation have not gotten there yet. - What is this priest talking about? Awkwardness? This is a subjective take that ignores just order and proper piety. Every action has meaning so too with the two Glorias, it does not confuse those that go to the ancient rite regularly, so he is just over his head on this
Restoration of Offertory Procession and Prayer of the Faithful
“Both of these rituals were specifically identified by SC as elements to be restored. The emphasis here is on “restored”; unlike some other rites introduced into the post-Vatican II liturgy,” - Later on he will jabber about antiquarianism… he is all over the board wherever it suits his modern notion of “liturgy” these two have a venerable tradition to them. - Which ended in the 11th century. While I don’t have an issue with either I would ask how this has really impacted those that now see it in the new rite. Though slight, there is a processing of the gifts up the steps of the Altar, which is easy to see and also has the same symbolism of elevating the normal to the sacred. And if we really wanted to restore the specific tradition of the “Prayers of the faithful” I would not look at the ambiguity of the new Rite, but to the actual ancient practice as Dr. Kwasniewski describes below:
Re-order the dismissal rite
The EF dismissal rite is anti-climactic, inasmuch as the priest dismisses the congregation and then bestows the blessing, followed by the Last Gospel. The OF has a more logical conclusion, in that the “Ite, missa est” is truly the last word. Perhaps the Last Gospel could be retained as an optional text, given its historical value.
- The importance of the Last Gospel is taken up in the Fisheaters Forum:
- It is also of interest that a Mexican Archbishop recently restored the Last Gospel in his diocese:
Move the “fractio”
In the OF, the “breaking of the bread” occurs during the Agnus Dei, which is the quintessential hymn to the “Lamb who was slain.” The action and the text for this rite in the EF do not correspond to each other as well.
- So, it occurs just before the Agus Dei in the ancient Rite, but during in the Novus Ordo… why exactly is it more fitting they should not have distinct observations? Make clear that the homily is a true part of the Sacred Liturgy Removing the maniple and donning the biretta during the homily (along with the opening and closing Sign of the Cross) declare that the homily does not form part of the Mass; indeed, that is an “interrupter.”
- Im not sure why he wishes to call a sermon an interrupter. It would be more close to an intermission during a play. The Play does not include it among its parts, but it is observed. Outside of Sundays the Church does not demand a sermon be delivered at either rite. Saying the sermon is part of the Mass is just pure novelty. It’s nice to have, but not necessary considering the sermon can vary greatly, especially now.
- Plus removing the maniple is considered a sign of authority, not an issue of being outside Mass (see Taylor Marshall) On the contrary, the homily is an essential part of the Sacred Liturgy.
- False, its rarely said, and is not essential period.
Furthermore, if it is not such, then any baptized Christian should be able to deliver it!
- So… the Church cant bind outside the Mass… what?
Maintain the integrity of the Sanctus
When polyphonic Masses are sung, it is not unusual for the Benedictus to be separated from the rest of the Sanctus, being sung after the Consecration. This is an obvious accommodation to the problem of a musical offering that so overshadows the liturgy itself that it cannot be performed without creating an undue delay in the celebration. If a musical composition would have that effect, it certainly comes under the condemnation of Pope Pius X’s Tra le Sollecitudini. Beyond that, if it is being used as a “filler” for the silence after the Consecration, it flies in the face of the whole rationale for an inaudible Canon, evoking a deeper sense of mystery.
- I’m not familiar with this issue so I don’t have a take.
Adopt the rubrics of the OF for the Communion Rite
If the Pater Noster is the prayer of the family of the Church to her heavenly Father, why should not the entire congregation pray it together? Of course, Pope Benedict’s norms in SP already allow for that, however, I have rarely seen the option taken. It would also make sense to have the other prayers of the Communion Rite recited audibly or chanted aloud (as in the OF), with the priest’s private preparation prayers done sotto voce (again, as in the OF).
- Purely subjectivism which I see no reason to change anything for.
Face the people when addressing the people; face God when addressing God.
We have used this formula to justify celebrating Mass ad orientem in the OF, that is, to face liturgical east from the Liturgy of the Eucharist forward. The converse is also true: when proclaiming the Scripture readings, face those to whom those texts are addressed. Whatever the historical origins of facing east for the Epistle and facing north for the Gospel at Solemn Mass, they are not truly communicative of the significance of the rite being celebrated.
- He assumes that the scriptures are read specifically since the people are there. But if the priest says a private mass and has no audience does that mean the scriptures are not meant for the people? Of course not, but the readings are first said as a reminder to God, just as the trumpets were played in the temple not for the peoples enjoyment or learning, but as a reminder to God as to what they had received from him
- Plus in the novus ordo anyone, including prots are welcome to deliver the readings outside the Gospel… which begs the question.
- The epistle is prayed from the south because the Gospel as not been taken to the nations yet, which symbolically happens at the movement of the missal from South to North.
- The lectionary is not purely a learning device. This is creeping Protestantism, but if you do follow them and learn that is welcome, yet unneeded.
- Una Voce addresses the Lectionary in Latin in one of their position papers:
Unite the calendars of the OF and EF
For the EF to be unable to commemorate the saints canonized since 1962 is an impoverishment—a point also raised by Pope Benedict in SP.
- Sure we can probably agree here Certain calendar changes were good (e.g., making the Solemnity of Christ the King the last Sunday of the liturgical year)
- But the feast was not meant to be an eschatological event. At the end of the liturgical year in the ancient rite we already observed this sovereignty over all in a different manner. Its not like Pius XI all of the sudden thought we were missing this, just look at the last day readings. , while others were destructive of long-standing traditions (e.g., Epiphany, Ascension). Regardless of what one thinks of either calendar (and no calendar will ever be perfect), operating with a dual-calendar system bespeaks division, the very antithesis of what good liturgy should be.
- All of this is playing off the idea that it’s a single rite… this is a weird game of denial for the sake of calming the mind with complacency.
Modify the rubrics SC calls for the modification of signs and symbols that are duplicative or arcane.
One thinks immediately of the multiple Signs of the Cross during the Canon. Just as the OF admits of a certain laxity, the EF can lean toward an unhealthy rigidity or rubricism. In medio stat virtus! (“Virtue stands in the middle”).
- See the note on repetition above. The notions of rigidity should be a clear give away. Now follow the dog whistle.
Rename the two principal parts of the Mass
To continue to call the first part of the Mass the “Mass of the Catechumens” is a form of the antiquarianism pilloried by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei. We have not been dismissing catechumens (or penitents) for centuries (except in silly parishes where baptized Christians preparing for reception into full communion are “dismissed”).
- If this terminology was reintroduced then it would be antiquarianism, but considering it has remained in East and West without the “feeling” of it needing to be changed because (((nomenclature))), I think this is just another way to separate us from the tradition. The post-conciliar nomenclature is quite accurate: Liturgy of the Word/Liturgy of the Eucharist.
- Plus non-Catholics are still to observe the different parts of the liturgy in separate manners, so tough, it should stay on tradition alone.
When I asked Taylor Marshall his thoughts here was the response:
20% good. 80% not so much. E.g. Removing maniple is a sign of teaching authority - not "outside of Mass". https://t.co/B6AeUCy2Bx— Taylor Marshall 🇺🇸 (@TaylorRMarshall) February 1, 2017
Fr. Hunwicke also wanted on the critique: HERE
Just an idea. Instead of seeking out someone that has been formed in the new theology and has only had limited liturgical experience in the ancient Rite, why not ask someone that daily says the Ancient Rite about what might be beneficial to it? Modernists will not rest until the ancient Rite is stripped... Thank the Lord for the ICRSS who use older books than the '62.