Thursday 21 November 2013

At last - a well reasoned case in support of the Ordinary Form

So rude to turn your back
on the members of the assembly

There is no shortage of balanced posts and articles on the values and integrity of the Latin Mass (Extraordinary Form) on the internet but, apparently nothing in the way of a reasoned argument in favour of the Novus Ordo (Ordinary Form) of the Mass.
Why, one must ask, are the liberals so coy about producing support in favour of what once was called 'Mass in the vernacular'?

Well, in the interest of fair play I have stepped into the breach and drafted a few words, bullet points, really, that go to prove that the OF Mass is a Mass of depth and liturgical profundity.

Here is my case in favour of the new Mass:-

1. The OF Mass is in English, unless you are in London, Hull, Birmingham or Cardiff in which case it might be in Spanish, Mandarin, Tagalog or Welsh.

2. The celebrant faces the congregation (how ill mannered it is to turn your back on people).

3. The congregation has a real role to play (as opposed to praying). They can greet other parishioners, arrange the felt banners, organise the dance routines, take small children out of church so that they may have fun, process up the aisle at the Offertory, saving the sacristan the chore of placing the hosts and the water and wine on the credence table), undertake the readings and, even, distribute Holy Communion and purify dry the sacred vessels afterwards so that the priest does not have to do anything.

4. The OF Mass is so diverse, you never know who is going to say what and the celebrant usually ad libs a bit just to keep things lively and people focused.

5. The priest's vestments are colourful and, invariably, of man made fibres. Polyester rules OK?

6. The bidding prayers in Mass link us right back to the times of the Reformation (only then it was just the Protestants who incorporated them into their liturgy).

7. You do not have to genuflect (or bow) to the Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle (that's if you can find it).

8. There's no painful kneeling to receive the Son of God, all you have to do is sashay stroll up to the communion rails sanctuary.

9. And you may receive in the hand despite the fact that your hands may not be spotless and, certainly, not blessed by the Bishop as a priest's are at ordination.

10. You may also chat to your neighbours, or those across the aisle, no emphasis on silly acts of reverence.

11. Humility is out the window, it's a dress code that says "Come as you please". God loves us all even if we are bareheaded, mini skirted and sleeveless (women) or in shorts, trainers and T shirt (men).

12.Girls may serve on the altar even though there is nothing for them to do; it's inclusivity, see?

Well, I think you will agree. That proves for once and for all that those who spout on about the beauty and God centred aspects of the old rite Mass are completely off beam. Nutters, in fact.

And here is an appalling account of how a group of young Catholics "stumbled" across a Latin Mass and suffered grave harm as a result....
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/11/guest-post-1st-traditional-latin-mass-experience-the-highly-pastoral-nature-of-the-extraordinary-form/?

46 comments:

  1. Of course the priest has to face the people, how else would they hear his jokes? Have to keep them rolling in the pews after all. Seriously though, how I pray for the restoration of the TLM as the ordinary form of the Latin Rite.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In defence of some celebrants of the Ordinary Form, they are not all as described, though some I have been to (in an emergency) undoubtedly are. A n O.F. reverently and properly celebrated, part Latin, part English can be quite beautiful - even if it is a rarity.
    Negatively - Bidding Prayers and the Peace, but don't get me started on that!

    ReplyDelete
  3. May I just say that our PP is rocksolidly in favour of EF and all the old trad ways. This daily regime he introduced as soon as he took charge of the parish, without preparation of the parishioners, who nearly all perceived the "innovations" with confusion and dismay. A few protested, without effect.

    The PP does say OF Sunday Masses for the 90% of his parishioners, but he says these "ad orientem" in a very low voice with all the accoutrements and style of the EF. He finds it a painful experience to offer OF. Equally, his style so screwed up some daily Mass attenders that they were risking ulceration andnow worship elsewhere.

    However, it is known that in a Mass at the local sisters' chapel, when a sister chose to stand to receive Holy Communion, and refused to kneel as he ordered her to, he refused to give her the Sacrament.

    The Sister told her superior, the superior told their Provincial who refused to "take it further" possibly fearing to deprive her sisters of Mass altogether.

    It seems to me there are several conflicting rights in this sad situation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a sad and not very Catholic story. It cannot be acceptable to act in a way (common though this has become in some ultra 'traditionalist' parishes) which drives away faithful massgoers who feel no longer welcome. It is licit in the United Kingdom to receive communion in the hand and - whatever his personal preference - the priest should respect that, just as he should not turn away those who prefer to receiver on the tongue. To make so obvious by his actions that he considers the Ordinary Form inferior to the Extraordinary is at odds with the way Pope Benedict draws attention to the richness of both forms of the Mass. His approach - as he makes clear in his theological writings - was to see the Church as symphony, not monophony, richness in proper diversity. The Holy Father's approach was 'both...and', not 'either/or'. To say the Ordinary Form in a Low voice is to discourage the participation proper to that form. Each Form should be reverently celebrated according to the norms appropriate to that form, not as a hybrid. The personal preference of the priest should not override the validity and propriety of either of the two Forms.One of the problems with implementing change after Vatican II was that the people were too often not catechised or prepared for the changes in liturgy, partly because there was often no tradition of preaching at Sunday Low Mass. The theological insights and teachings of the Council were often not integrated as explanations of the changes, leaving many bewildered. Arbitrary imposition of individual taste as a liturgical norm is poor practice.

      Delete
    2. "Arbitrary imposition of individual taste as a liturgical norm is poor practice."

      But, friend Michael, that is precisely the most telling argument against the new Mass, that many priests and laity make it up as they go along. Do you not see that that is why so many prefer the stability, reverence and beauty of the ancient rite?

      Delete
    3. There is no guarantee of beauty and reverence in either form, as this depends on so many factors. I have seen recent examples of Extraordinary Form with poorly enunciated Latin or with the character of theatrical, Sealed Knot type reenactments as well as others devout and reverential, just as I have seen abuses of the OF. And I am old enough to remember very well garbled and hasty 12 minute weekday pre-Vatican II masses as well as those celebrated reverently and prayerfully.

      Delete
    4. I served weekday pre-Vatican II Masses, and it is literally impossible to celebrate one in 12 minutes. There were always communicants, the Leonine prayers were mandatory, and to get through in 20 minutes was on the brisk side.

      On the other hand, the Novus Ordo with EP II is easily achievable in 12 minutes, which is why it is usually padded out with homilies, tedious commentaries, readings "proclaimed" portentously by lay readers, and enforced and artificial periods of inactivity.

      Delete
    5. Michael1. Thank you for your balanced response. I did not mention that our PP seems to think it is "in the tradition" to say Low EF Mass at a breakneck speed. But presumably, since he does not remember time pre-Vatican II, he has been taught this way. The servers delay the proceedings a bit . . . as they don't know Latin.

      Delete
    6. The 12 minute mass was perfectly possible through priests who clearly skim-read the silent bits. I once served, during a conference, 5 masses in less than an hour and a quarter. Incidentally, Hilaire Belloc used to complain about priests who did not get through weekday masses in less than 15 minutes: he thought 11 about right.

      Delete
    7. Michael1...how can I put this charitably? You are talking absolute nonsense (and so is Hilaire Belloc, if he has not been misquoted).

      Delete
    8. Richard, I'm with you here. Belloc (and Waugh) liked the Mass low and short but the so-called 'silent bits' need to be pronounced, not skim-read; apart from anything else there are ritual gestures prescribed for the Offertory and Canon which accompany the words and cannot be omitted. Most of them were removed in 1967, incidentally. I can say the Confiteor as fast as anybody, but all the inflections are there (without them Latin is meaningless). Priests at Low Mass would read the epistle and gospel at a brisk conversational speed (as is required) because they were familiar with the Vulgate. Nowadays they are less so, which can drag things out a bit.

      Delete
    9. Thank you John, nice to be lumped in with B & W.

      Delete
  4. I go along mainly for the kiss of peace and the chance to hear some quality guitar music. I heard a rumour that there was some religious aspect to it, as well, but this seems unlikely.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bruvver E, must you bring religion into everything?

      Delete
  5. The General Instructions of the Roman Missal (163) now reserve purification of the Sacred Vessels to the Priest alone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TFC....I know, but who observes it?

      Delete
    2. TFC

      And the deacon (183) or an instituted acolyte (192), although the latter is seen as a transitional rather than a permanent ministry, which is not what Paul VI intended in Ministeria Quaedam. If we had more instituted acolytes in parishes, we could give the army of Extraordinary Monsters their marching orders.

      Delete
  6. Have you seen this this Richard ? I am quite shocked by the article and the poor argument therein, but I would be interested in what you thought of his comments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not making an argument for anything other than the silliness of the picture. It has nothing to do with the OF or the EF.

      Delete
  7. Just speed read it Mark as I am going out as of now. It does not really warrant a response, there is no substance to it and his argument is flawed. More later.

    ReplyDelete
  8. No, no, no, Richard. It's all about how the priest FEELS. If he feels devout, it's all ok.

    ReplyDelete
  9. As was said in an earlier related post by Fr. A.M. the OF Mass can be reverential, so I do not recognise a lot of what has been stated as fact here. People DO NOT natter away during Mass, or on their way to receive communion and they DO genuflect. Some in my parish choose to receive the host on the tongue - they are not turned away. Dancing is not a common occurance, but can you see into the hearts and minds of those who use it as a form of worship, or of those who lead the hymns on instruments other than a church organ...a great deal of prayerful preparation is involved, and does not deserved to be dismissed out of hand in this way. And even though we have no church ( no pews etc.) you will see both young and old kneel throughout Mass. Nowadays, as the education is different, people attend Mass out of love of God, not from fear of eternal damnation as was taught in - not so distant - days gone by. Who are you to judge - that should be left to God alone.
    Sue
    Sue

    ReplyDelete
  10. This is the whole problem Sue. God loves us but God is just too. He will be our judge and we should never forget that.

    ReplyDelete
  11. No, I disagree ( as you'd expect) Rhoslyn. Judgement is only one aspect. He is merciful, loving, compassionate...and, as we are merely human we grossly limit the extent of these qualities. Let's not forget, He sent his only Son to be our saviour. Are you implying that was in vain? Surely not..
    Sue

    ReplyDelete
  12. There is no love without truth and justice.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I thought God's love for us His children to be - like any good father - unconditional and boundless.
    Sue

    ReplyDelete
  14. Very naughty Richard! I was really expecting a good case to be made.
    Sue, Lynda did not deny that God's love is unconditional and boundless. It may be just me but this argument seems to be veering off track. Perhaps it would be better put this way- God's love for us is not in question. What is in question is our love for God, because we are weak. Love is wanting the only the best for the lover- do we want AND work for the best for God, with all our heart and soul and strength and mind?
    This is my reasoning as to why my preference is not important but the preference God is. The preference of God is shown through Tradition in our Church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. God endowed man with reason, and supplied reliable moral and spiritual authority in the Magisterium of the Church (which determines questions on the basis of Tradition, including Holy Scripture. With our free will, we can still choose to reject the objective truth. Such is the love of God for mankind. Don't abuse the concept of God's mercy to shirk responsibility for one's choices. If one rejects God's commandments one cannot then expect God to ignore this. That is absurd.

      Delete
  15. So, Joshua, of course, as a Traditionalist, you would argue in favour of the EF Mass. I have nothing against those who prefer to worship in that form. My problem is that many of you are condescending and facetious - as in this post - towards all aspects of the OF Mass, even down to the fabric of the vestments!
    This is nit-picking snobbery in the extreme.
    The OF is a reverent form of worship, its Massgoers reverential, and deserving of respect as such.
    Sue

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now then, Sue,

      If we lined up all the commentators on the blog in order of the condescension and ill-will evident in their posts, you'd be at the front of the line, closely followed by that Michael chap that somehow doesn't have a "Reply" button below his comment.

      Delete
    2. Whoa, don't hold back, Simon, let it all out...
      Just sticking up for the OF.
      Hazardous on a blog like this, I know, one could easily develop a persecution complex.
      Considering the flak, I think I've been pretty restrained...
      Sue

      Delete
    3. No, you are not "just sticking up for the OF", and you have not been restrained. You have behaved very badly, as badly as you accuse others.

      Delete
    4. Hmm...
      I can only respond by stating that my only intention has been to stick up for the OF.
      God Bless
      Sue

      Delete
  16. Sue, if we spend our lives living contrary to God's laws, i.e. rejecting Him, when it comes to death, we will go to hell because hell is that place without God. This is all very Protestant - God loves me, therefore I am going to heaven. No, that is the sin of presumption. See here http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/what-is-the-sin-of-presumption

    Our Lord clearly spoke of judgment, of having to answer for our sins.

    "He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.
    Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven.
    And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come" Matthew 12:30-32

    "But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment.
    For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned" - Matthew 12:36-37

    Like all good fathers, God also punishes His children. You are not a good father if you let your children do whatever they want. No matter how much it hurts you to do it, you must punish them when they do wrong and that final punishment is hell, which we bring on ourselves.

    I don't know if you're a Catholic, Sue, but you sound a lot like a Protestant right now. I really can't understand why people emphasise only half the story - yes, God loves me and He wants me to be saved, that's why He gave His only son for my sins. But each time I sin, I drive those nails even further into Our Lord's hands and feet. God gave us confession but we must also suffer temporal punishment for those sins for which we have been forgiven and if we don't do enough of that on earth, then we're off to Purgatory.

    I don't know about you, but I want to be with God as soon as possible. If I cannot bring myself take advantage of the grace which God gives me to mould myself into a saint, I at least want to spend the minimum amount of time possible in Purgatory because I am afraid of that time of suffering. The longing that I feel for God in this life is bad enough.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Well, you have the sin of presumption well and truly nailed, Rhoslyn, presuming an awful lot about someone you are judging by a few posts.
    As a cradle Catholic (!) I am only too aware of God's judgement, and as I was trying to say - in a far more polite manner than you chose to use - that is only ONE aspect of Him. Of course He chastises us, children need boundaries ( I do own a conscience!) but that is only a FRACTION of His love.
    This post started off ridiculing - as expected - the OF Mass, and thereby its worshippers, and that iswhy I am speaking out.
    I think your post has gone beyond robust discussion, Rhoslyn.
    Sue

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hear ye! Hear all ye traddies! Stop turning ppl away with your snobbish facetious condescending selves!
    But notwithstanding the sins of the trads, will you try to see what we are trying to say? I, at least, am bewildered as to why, for example, such an important thing as communion may be received pretty much however you choose. Surely the EF way gives more glory to God? Surely only the best fabrics should be for God? Surely we may dance or sing in our private devotions, but ditch all that and faithfully follow how Tradition has shown us to worship God in the Holy Mass? Yet when we bring this up, we are judged, yes judged, to be snobbish and nitpicky!

    The OF is capable of reverence, but the EF is reverent by nature. I judge here by the rubrics of each. The faithful will respond accordingly.

    Perhaps our exuberance takes us too far at times, perhaps our weaknesses get in the way, but I do so hope that one looks past all that and asks-which is the best for God?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Quite so, Joshua.

      Although "best for God" might admit an unfortunate interpretation. "What is more pleasing" is certainly something we should ask ourselves - every day and in all we do, and certainly in the celebration of Mass.

      Delete
  19. For mercy to arise, there must be repentance and an honest intention not to sin again. It is beyond presumptuous to think one can continue to sin with impunity because one thinks God ought to permit that.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The New Mass (Novus Ordo) is valid, but in many of the various forms we find it in, the result of deliberate manipulation by liberal/Modernist Reformers in the 70s, highly doctrinally misleading.

    The concepts of the Mass as a Divine Sacrifice, The Real Presence, and the Ordained Priesthood are all undermined and diminished, by the priest facing in the congregation, Communion in the hand, the illicit routine use of emHCs and general lay involvement. This was done with deliberate intent by the Reformers and our bishops either sympathised, or worse still in a way, just allowed it out of sheer incompetence.

    The Mass has become almost indistinguishable from a Protestant communion service, the crassest example of Protestantisation being the addition of the non-scriptural doxology after the Pater Noster. They might at least have had the nerve just to paste it on, as the Protestants did.

    The answer is to Reform the New Mass back to at least the Pauline Mass but better, to what Sacrosanctum Concilium actually called for, so that alongside the ancient Catholic Mass of St Pius V which was not and never could have been abrogated, we can achieve a proper lex orandi to express our lex credendi.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Yes, isn't it the case that SC never suggested removing Latin, nor that the priest should turn his back to Our Lord, nor receiving Our Lord in one's hand or while standing?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Michael1, the most charitable phrase I can come up with is that you are 'whistling in the dark'. No Latin Mass could be said in 12 minutes. As John stated, 20 minutes would be the very minimum but, even then, a great rarity.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Thank you all for your comments, I had not really imagined that my post would create such 'lively' responses.
    Sue, I am sorry that you feel 'persecuted' but can assure you that is not the case. Criticised, yes, but I am sure you are more than capable of taking criticism on the chin.
    I would suggest that, if you were less uncharitable in your comments you would find people accepting them as part of a serious debate. You may find that rich coming from me but I do try to wrap my criticisms of the NO is a semi humourous manner. Please come to any NO Mass in this part of Menevia and you will find the abuses I have mentioned in abundance. God bless. Comments are now closed on this topic.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Richard, I know you will delete this, but I just wanted you to know that I didn't feel persecuted, but was attempting to lighten the mood when I was accused of the worst condescension and ill-will by Simon...which seems to have enraged him further. Yes, I did take exception to Rhoslyn's response, but if the boot were on the other foot, wouldn't you? And I did find your initial post to be defamatory to OF and those who worship at it ( wouldn't expect anything less, knowing your point of view) but by doing that, you were attack me personally and all my fellow parishioners, friends....so of course I stood up for myself and for them. I do not attack the EF, just the attitude shown here by those who do.
    Just have to agree to differ!
    God bless all.
    Sue

    ReplyDelete
  25. oops, that last sentence is wrong..
    It should read:
    I do not attack the EF, just the attitude shown here by those who show such disdain for the OF.
    Sue

    ReplyDelete
  26. THE
    WALK

    Desperately lost
    November frost
    When all seems
    To decay

    A leaf bedspread
    Does cover the dead
    Where bone and body
    Lay

    A pale gray dawn
    Then yawns upon
    Cold stones
    And acorns brown

    I walk to Mass
    On icy grass
    To see His spiked
    Barbed crown

    Where wood twined-braid
    His head, it laid
    Blood soaked
    Pierced flesh by thorn

    But crown displays
    The price He pays –
    The Priest at Mass
    Each morn

    His Flesh from bread
    Wine is Blood shed
    Under appearances
    Matter resembles

    Like body and bone
    Distinct…not alone
    Hallowed souls elevate
    And hell trembles.

    ReplyDelete