|
|
Post by Ranger on Oct 12, 2015 13:13:00 GMT
Maybe it's a little too academic, but there is a distinction between the OF as it is defined and as it is in practice; just to take the example you mentioned above, Roger, I can see where you're coming from regarding the priest's reverence and an ad orientem stance (I'm sure that's not the right word), but the OF can be said ad orientem and if I'm not mistaken it is the norm on paper if not in practice.
I do think that Fr. Longenecker has a point about the EF attracting priests and laity who are insistent upon reverence; I've heard stories about pre-Conciliar priests in Dublin for instance having competitions to see who could say daily Mass the fastest, and a priest nick-named 'Flash Flanagan' or something along those lines because he could do it in under 15 minutes. Not the most reverent take on the Mass to be honest. I think that you simply can't compare a modern EF community with your average pre-Conciliar parish; the situations are entirely different.
|
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Oct 12, 2015 13:37:23 GMT
Maybe it's a little too academic, but there is a distinction between the OF as it is defined and as it is in practice; just to take the example you mentioned above, Roger, I can see where you're coming from regarding the priest's reverence and an ad orientem stance (I'm sure that's not the right word), but the OF can be said ad orientem and if I'm not mistaken it is the norm on paper if not in practice. I do think that Fr. Longenecker has a point about the EF attracting priests and laity who are insistent upon reverence; I've heard stories about pre-Conciliar priests in Dublin for instance having competitions to see who could say daily Mass the fastest, and a priest nick-named 'Flash Flanagan' or something along those lines because he could do it in under 15 minutes. Not the most reverent take on the Mass to be honest. I think that you simply can't compare a modern EF community with your average pre-Conciliar parish; the situations are entirely different. I broadly agree with Ranger. I also think that there is a strong case that the Liturgy of the Word should be in the vernacular, except for perhaps the Psalm, on the grounds that part of the purpose of that part of the Mass is the instruction and education of the faithful. Roger does make some decent points though, to be fair. |
|
|
|
Post by rogerbuck on Oct 17, 2015 7:02:53 GMT
Maybe it's a little too academic, but there is a distinction between the OF as it is defined and as it is in practice; just to take the example you mentioned above, Roger, I can see where you're coming from regarding the priest's reverence and an ad orientem stance (I'm sure that's not the right word), the OF can be said ad orientem and if I'm not mistaken it is the norm on paper if not in practice. I do think that Fr. Longenecker has a point about the EF attracting priests and laity who are insistent upon reverence; I've heard stories about pre-Conciliar priests in Dublin for instance having competitions to see who could say daily Mass the fastest, and a priest nick-named 'Flash Flanagan' or something along those lines because he could do it in under 15 minutes. Not the most reverent take on the Mass to be honest. I think that you simply can't compare a modern EF community with your average pre-Conciliar parish; the situations are entirely different. Yes Ranger the OF can be said ad orientam. But the simple fact that virtually all the old altars were destroyed to facilitate versum populum speaks volumes in itself. That said, I hear you when you write "if I'm not mistaken it is the norm on paper". I have heard something similar - but question it given the massive requirement for new altars after the 1960s. I wonder if Hibernicus or any one else more learned than me can clarify this? In the end, though all these "rational" arguments fail for me. I trust more my process of inner struggle over many years, alluded to above, whist I watched my wife weep and, initially, argued with her … Besides my wife's testimony, as it worked on me for years, I also trust conclusions from those who seem to me most penetratingly aware of the crisis in the Church. Thus, I hope I may be forgiven for repeating what Ratzinger wrote in his autobiography Milestones: "The ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves today depends in great part on the collapse of the liturgy." For all the "Flash Flanagans" and countless abuses that no doubt existed, I am now convinced that the pre-1962 liturgy gave incredible strength to the Church. And that its "collapse" is slowly killing us. |
|
|
|
Post by rogerbuck on Oct 17, 2015 7:45:44 GMT
Forgive me, if I seem to be "spamming" my own blog here. But I'm placing a link to piece here, relevant to the above, which owes far more to a priest who contacted me than it does to me. A priest who only found what he was doing as a priest when he discovered the EF after Summorum Pontificum … He wrote me a letter that I quote in this blog … what he says seems very important to me and it speaks to depths beyond anything I have said above … Link to what this priest said of his life changing discovery … corjesusacratissimum.org/2009/08/becoming-awake-to-the-holy-mass/ |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger on Oct 17, 2015 15:57:37 GMT
I appreciate a lot of what you're saying Roger. I think that the experience of that priest you quote in your piece is a powerful one, and one I have heard other priests speak of. They almost always say that 'learning the EF helps me to pray the OF much better' or things to that effect. I think that focus on the priest as opposed to just the congregation is important.
But that said, I find that many of the changes to the Mass make sense to me, or at least the theory behind them. I think the problem is that they were all taken too far, and that dodgy theology got mixed in with sound developments. I speak as somebody who attended the EF for many years, and somebody who has studied Latin formally for many years and has a great love for the language of the Church (It saddens me to see that Laudato Si' has only just been translated into Latin, a sign that the Church is losing this important part of her 'flavour' if you will).
But I find it so much easier to focus on the mystery at hand during an OF form Mass that is both reverent and follows the rubrics (those caveats are of the utmost importance). This is particularly so when it comes to daily Mass, which here in Dublin in the EF is almost always a silent low Mass. There are a few keys things here; the use of the vernacular at certain points in the Mass, particularly the readings, and the fact that the laity make many of the responses and not just the servers. Otherwise I find myself quite 'at sea' so to speak. At a Low Mass the whole Mass is silent; it's not enough just to read the missal and watch, I need something more to 'grab onto' so to speak so that I can participate in the liturgy (this has a lot to do probably with the fact that I get very easily distracted and daydream a lot). I have been at Masses too where the readings are read in the Latin only. Again, one can follow in a Missal with facing translation, but much is lost here I think.
The use of Latin comes from a time in the Church's history when it could be understood by the vast majority of European Catholics, even if the language was one step removed, almost like Shakespearean English is to us today. There could be understanding of it. I know that I'm simplifying here, Latin could be understood by most Europeans until about 900-1000AD (Not so much in Ireland/England/Scandinavia though) and most North Africans until Arabic became dominant there; Eastern Churches more or less did their own thing with Liturgy in Greek or Old Slavonic, the local vernacular of the time in those areas.
I think that Alaisdir has often spoken about certain developments in the EF such as the Dialogue Mass which have had difficulty taking root here in Ireland for various reasons and I think that this would have been the best route to take. Even now Pope Benedict has recommended a 'cross-pollination' of the Rites and this is what I would hope for; an OF that would take the good from the 20th centruy developments but learn from what has been lost from the EF and reinstitute it. We see this already in some places; OF being celebrated ad orientem, with Latin hymns and key parts of the Mass being said in Latin. This would be the approach I would favour, which would hopefully marry the best of both worlds, a rite which would retain the ancient beauty of the Church whilst still addressing a new and changed world and generation.
|
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Oct 17, 2015 16:29:45 GMT
Great post, Ranger. I heartily agree.
Sometimes I feel like those who attend the Ordinary Form are seen as watered-down Catholics by some devotees of the EF. (I don't mean anyone on this forum.) I have been to Masses (in America) which are very much as Ranger describes here; a kind of hybrid of the old and new, more Latin and dignity, but preserving the vernacular in the readings and Prayers of the Faithful. That seemed like the ideal to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by rogerbuck on Oct 19, 2015 7:43:54 GMT
Maolsheachlann, yes the watered-down syndrome is real and very sad …
And Ranger, you have clearly put a great deal of thought into this. I would not disagree with either you or maolsheachlann about vernacular for readings and more …
It is very hard to articulate right now where I differ from you. It might well sound vague, wooly and mystical. But my wife's subtle perceptions alluded to, much more contact with the priest invoked above (among other priests) and my own struggling with these issues over years has personally convinced me of inscrutable dimensions here beyond the more utilitarian ones you mention, Ranger.
Typing that word "utilitarian" makes me fear it might sound like an insult … it isn't meant to be. I hear your long term consideration and your need for something to "grab onto" …
But the Mass is a mystery … and the deeply mysterious post-60s collapse of the Church has, again, "personally convinced me" of the need to look towards depths that seem to me to go beyond anything I have been able to articulate in these last exchanges.
(Which is okay … perhaps only geniuses can really find words to articulate these things.)
|
|
|
|
Post by rogerbuck on Oct 20, 2015 10:36:45 GMT
Linking to my site … After engaging in the above, I found myself with much more I wanted to say, which seemed a bit lengthy for this forum. So I decided to blog it. There is now a lengthy continuation of my comments above for anyone who may be interested. |
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Nov 13, 2015 14:32:59 GMT
I don’t like entering in to this debate, as it is like comparing apples and oranges. The problem with comparing the OF and EF as they are now are different. The OF is typical and often casual. The EF is said especially and deliberately by a minority within the clergy for many reasons, though by priests with experience of the OF, often the very worst. The memory of when the EF was the norm is another matter. I have no doubt, then as much as now, that there were are great many places where it was celebrated very well indeed, but unfortunately this was not the rule. The constant example given is the famous Father “Flash” Kavanagh in St Audoen’s, High St in Dublin (previously in Precious Blood, Cabra, see here. There is a folklore about Father Kavanagh, but my own father attended Masses offered by him on weekdays in the 1950s and they were invariably finished within 15 minutes. There are other stories about Father Kavanagh’s speed too, and though he was the exception, I think he was more typical of the norm that Solemn High Mass in the Pro-Cathedral. A friend of mine went to a Salesian boarding school in the US at the same time, and he said the boys in chapel were betting on which of the fathers offering low Mass at the side altars would be finished first and another friend had a similar experience in a Sacred Heart Missionaries boarding school in Australia in the early 1960s. There were also those who went to Mass and left when they saw a priest finish celebrating a low Mass at the side altar (it happened in Dublin’s Pro-Cathedral every Sunday) – they fulfilled their obligation to attend Mass on Sunday. We need another standard here. In regard to the SSPX, we cannot debate the society except by the official position. This, more or less, is that the OF Mass is valid, but may be defective due to the intention of the celebrant or his manner of celebration (which is a reasonable position). What the SSPX adherents (who are not members of the society) believe, is usually very different. This letter appeared in last week’s Irish Catholic and is a lot nearer the average: I’m not singling Mr Tunney out for opprobrium, but what he says here has been repeated by SSPX adherents everywhere and it can’t have appeared by osmosis. But this is not the official SSPX position and is therefore not our yardstick. By the same token, we can’t take the best example of the EF available and compare it with the worst example of the OF. Even a mediocre EF Mass will beat a clown Mass in the OF or some other similar travesty. If we are comparing the two forms, the OF must be looked at not as it is typically celebrated, but as it is celebrated in complete accord with the rubrics and ideally in Latin – in other words as it should be rather than it is. For obvious reasons, this cannot be contrasted to some shoddy EF someone can dig up, the likes of which certainly did happen in the past. |
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 30, 2016 20:23:09 GMT
From Alison Gray GEORGE MACKAY BROWN: NO SEPARATION (Gracewing, 2016)
p.196 24 February 1983, Brown to Gray: I agree with you - the Latin Mass is a miss. The majesty of Latin has been cast aside for a dull drab contemporary English. Of course, the central core of the Mass remains untouched. But I miss the grave and lovely dialogue of priest and acolyte, and those mysterious silences when each heart was a loom of prayer.
p.204 15 March 1992, Brown to Gray: Catholics everywhere, it seems, are great at squabbling. The wonder is they haven't torn themselves apart many times since the Reformation: I suppose the wind of the Holy Spirit keeps the ark from the rocks... I'd never belong to that Lefebvrist lot.
Part of the interest of the first extract is that he sees what many OF advocates regard as a disadvantage of the EF - congregational silence and private participation through silent sharing - as a blessing. The rejection of the SSPX in the second extract is presumably a rejection of factional division.
Mackay Brown (an Orkney convert) was one of Scotland's greatest twentieth-century poets; it can hardly be said he didn't appreciate language.
|
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 22, 2017 22:12:21 GMT
Fr Hunwicke makes a very good point in the post linked below - I'm surprised it never struck me before. One of the major principles behind the shaping of the OF rite was a greater emphasis on the didactic - teaching - role of the liturgy. Another principal was that unnecessary repetitions - which in practice meant all repetitions - should be avoided. The problem with this is that if you are talking to people in order to teach them something, it is absolutely necessary to repeat it for emphasis - to give them more scope to grasp it. liturgicalnotes.blogspot.ie/2017/08/drip-drip-drip.html |
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Aug 23, 2017 20:16:05 GMT
Did Catholics even care about the liturgy before Vatican II? I know they cared about the sacrament of the Mass, but were they fussy about the particular form of the liturgy?
I'm aware of controversies in the Church of England and other Protestant churches when it came to public worship, but I get the impression Catholics were more focused on doctrine than on liturgy. Yes, I know that that there is a relation between the two, but surely that can be exaggerated.
|
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 26, 2017 18:59:12 GMT
There was a subculture of professional liturgical reformists and their devotees (often centred on Benedictine monasteries, which promoted liturgically-centred spirituality through such writers as Bl. Columba Marmion and Dom Anscar Vonier; the principal centre of this in pre-Vatican II Ireland was at Glenstal Abbey). They saw themselves as rediscovering authentic spirituality but were often seen as an eccentric fringe. (this was very much the case in Ireland, where most bishops - JC McQuaid being the most prominent - firmly repressed liturgical experimentation on the grounds that it would confuse the simple faithful.)
Dom Alcuin Read's history of the pre-1958 liturgical movement is useful in this respect. Two points should be borne in mind:
(1) There was a longstanding tension between the aims of teaching the congregation to understand the existing liturgy and simplifying the liturgy so the congregation could understand it.
(2) Quite a few preconciliar liturgists were deeply dismayed at the way the reform was actually implemented.
I suspect that liturgy was not a big issue in preconciliar Ireland, not only because of the bishops' attitude but because:
(a) One of the sources of liturgical reform was a movement in C19 France to suppress local diocesan rites in favour of the Roman liturgy. Because Ireland was a mission field post-Reformation, local rites (whicih were often more elaborate than the Roman rite) died out in the early modern era and the Roman rite became standard.
(b) IN Britain, liturgical interest was partly an import from Anglicanism via converts - Anglican ritualists were much more interested in liturgical detail and symbolism than cradle Catholics, who took it for granted. Historically the C of I had very few ritualists and they were extremely marginal.
|
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 26, 2017 19:05:02 GMT
Oh, and part of the point the liturgists were making was that it was a problem that Catholics were not liturgically focussed - that we were devoting too much effort to extra-liturgical devotions and taking the Mass for granted. The internal Anglican debates partly derived from the fact that a large body of Anglicans who thought the Anglican church should be evangelical and/or Erastian (controlled by the state) wanted to suppress ritualism by force, because they saw it as too Catholic. This issue did not arise in the Catholic church until relatively recently: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kensiten.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritualism_in_the_Church_of_England |
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Oct 9, 2017 19:20:17 GMT
|
|
