Do You Agree With Dom Alcuin Reid's Assessment?

[PhuturePriest]

Seriously,that book is one of the most important I have ever read on the Liturgy. If I had unlimited funds I would buy hundreds of copies to give to people.

 

I shall order mine posthaste.

[CatherineM]

And what liturgy was used in the 1940s? ;)

No idea. My A+ in Church History was inflated I'm sure.

[Basilisa Marie]

Seriously,that book is one of the most important I have ever read on the Liturgy. If I had unlimited funds I would buy hundreds of copies to give to people.

 

 

In all charity, I do not believe feelings determine validity either. 

 

Okay guys, but in fairness, look at what she's implying.  She's saying that part of the traditional liturgy "package" is this idea that you needs tons of gold and finery - at the very least, it's a misconception plenty of non-traddie folks have of traddie folks.  And your responses are a perfect example of why so many people are hostile to traddie things like the traditional liturgy. You guys are more concerned with correctness and winning the argument through being more correct that you forget that human feelings and emotions are a huge part of human experiences, and our lived experiences are a huge part of our relationship with God.  A purely mental ("Logical") argument isn't going to work, and hasn't worked for anyone who isn't a mostly-mental-argument type person.  You steamroll anything that isn't cold logic. 

ANYWAY

A lot of people would be more open to the traditional forms of liturgy if they were first appropriately educated in the liturgy (through factual catechesis and giving them the opportunity to experience more traditional forms of prayer in experientially-appropriate ways), and if the traditional liturgy is done in an exceedingly beautiful way.  In practice, this might look like first getting people to understand and appreciate their own familiar liturgy (the novus ordo) and moving towards a richer experience of that liturgy, get them to want to do things in a solemn and correct way. Then you move to introducing them to a full traditional liturgy, with lots of prayer aids (handouts, etc) and as beautiful of a choir/other music that you can muster.  

We definitely need a reform of the reform. I agree with most of what Oremus said, though I have a hard time seeing how the traditional liturgy really embodies full conscious and active participation. It's incredibly beautiful when done well, and highlights the majesty of God and the sacrificial nature of the mass. But frankly most people just aren't ready for it, if they ever want to be. It's okay if people prefer the novus ordo even after they've been properly introduced to the traditional form. 

[Nihil Obstat]

As I feared, the topic is now hopelessly derailed. The article I linked was not remotely meant to be another 'mean old trads' topic. Rather it is a discussion of the current status of the liturgical movement, possibilities moving forward, and an opportunity for further refining our priorities.
The fact that a serious, scholarly article like this is immediately treated like another example of irrelevant, self righteous traditionalism is both sad and infiniyely frustrating.

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

I think what is being missed here is that this article is not about traditionalists vs liberals . It is about fostering a spirit of Authentic Liturgical Reform and Renewal. A spirit even the SVC proclaimed and stressed as being important for the wellbeing of the Church. The beautiful part of this movement is that it will encompass both traditionalists and liberals and will, God willing, unite the two groups under a common spirit.

Here is an example of some of the amazing things this type of movement is finding out even about the EF, prior to SVC.

http://www.ccwatershed.org/blog/2013/apr/11/de-musica-sacra-et-sacra-liturgia-1958/

[CatherineM]

I am deeply sorry I derailed your thread. I made the absurdly wrong assumption that posting an article about how the liturgy needs reforming was another attempt to teach those of us who attend the NO mass about the error of our ways. I'm going to be taking Latin soon so I can proceed with my JCL, so I'm sure I'll understand better about these issues after that.

[PhuturePriest]

This is why we can't have nice things, and this is why trads keep their nice things in churches where they're safe.

[Maggyie]

Dom Reid says, "The reformed liturgical rites—the usus recentior—are here to stay. That is a reality and an important pastoral one which the new liturgical movement cannot ignore"

This is a great point. It's the "New Liturgucal Movement" not "The Old Liturgucal Movement" after all. The point is not to go backwards in time to some mythical golden era of liturgy but to move forward to make the liturgy still better. In a 2000 year old church the fact that reforming the liturgy is a project that takes centuries should not be a surprise. Eventually we will have the most perfect Heavenly liturgy but in the meantime we must continue on the pilgrimage.

[Gabriela]

Yeah, I'm kinda' surprised this went in the direction it did, because my take on the article was that it was exceedingly balanced and fair and realistic. It wasn't radical in the slightest. The only thing I can see a NO-loving Catholic objecting to is the idea that the NO, as celebrated today, isn't in fact in the spirit of VII. But a really well-educated NO-loving Catholic would know that that's verifiably true, and so should at least come to terms with it and, I think, engage with the article's ideas to consider what should be done about that.

 

I think one needs a pretty "liberal" bias to construe this very moderate article as trad "(NO-)hate speech".

 

I think we're back on track now, though. Glad for that!  :like2:

 

EDITED TO ADD: And yes, Nihil, I do agree with his assessment!

Edited November 16, 2014 by Gabriela

[Amppax]

In CatharineM's defense, her statement about choosing between social action and liturgy does reply to the letter, as Dom Reid spoke against "humanitarian activism." Maybe not the central thesis, but not completely off topic.

[TheLeastofThese]

This is just my humble opinion, so please do not think that I am trying to start another pointless debate between Liberal and Conservative Catholics.  Please don't yell at me...I just want to see everyone get along.

 

There are parts of the assessment I agree with and other parts I do not.  I do feel that the VII reforms went way beyond the intent of the Council.  I also believe that the EF should never have been relegated to the "back seat" in favor of the OF.

 

That being said, however, I believe that liturgy using the vernacular is extremely important to realizing a greater evangelism in the world at large.  Let's face it...part of what puts many non-Catholics off when it comes to Catholicism is the use of Latin for the liturgy.  When the liturgy was developed, Latin was appropriate; much of the world spoke Latin as it was the language of the Roman Empire.  But it is not a "holy" language...it is just a language.  And if we really want to reach people, we need to speak "their" language as it were.

 

I wholeheartedly agree that the OF needs to be reviewed and reformed.  Much was lost in the aftermath of VII which should be restored.  I believe that there is a place in the Church for both the EF and the OF and that they both, when celebrated authentically, bring honor and glory to God and equip His Church to carry out His mission on earth.

 

 

[puellapaschalis]

Islam uses Arabic in its 'liturgy' and has no problem 'evangelising'.

 

Evangelisation is not done by liturgy alone: it necessitates a progression from knowing little to knowing more. The liturgy, on the other hand, is the right worship of God. Of course there's no way anyone's going to walk in fresh off the street and get it. That's not the primary aim of liturgy.

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

While I do not want to make this an argument about Latin, I think Catholics need to appreciate more that the Latin language is Sacred:
 

2.  Do other religious use dead languages for their worship?

The Jews traditionally worship using the older form of Hebrew as a sacred liturgical language. And in like manner the Church today continues to revere Latin as her sacred liturgical language.

Back to Question Categories Â»

 

http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/faq/understanding-latin-in-the-liturgy.html

 

 

 

 

The other thing which I think is promoted incorrectly is the idea that the OF is the Vernacular Mass when it was never coined this in the Council.  The OF is a Mass which the Council has permitting to be said in the vernacular, but it can HARDLY be said that it was advocated by the Council that the OF's primary language be the vernacular to the point of excluding Latin.  On the contrary the Council has stated the Latin should be given primacy of place within the OF. 

 

 

Edited November 17, 2014 by Oremus Pro Invicem

[An Historian]

I think that for all intents and purposes Latin is finished as a liturgical language in the Roman Rite. It didn't have to be this way, but the culture of Latin cannot be restored. It's unreasonable to expect the faithful to learn an alien language now. It wasn't so a couple of generation s ago. But it is easier to destroy than build up.

But at the same time the Second Vatican Council tells us that we have to preserve the Latin of the liturgy. The current practise of the Ordinary Form disobeys the Counciliar legislation on this point. I think that the only reasonable expectation is to restoee the silent canon, suppress all the Eucharistic Prayers a part from the Roman Canon, and remove the permission to use it in the vernacular. Simple chants of the Mass can also be preserved. That will be about all.

Contrary to the above assertion, Latin was never a barrier for conversiom. First off, because Protestants converted all the time amd fell in love with the Latin liturgy, amd after 50 years of a vernacular liturgy, conversions have plummeted and there are no mass droves of Protestants converting to the Church.

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

I think the problem is we've gotten lazy when it comes to the Liturgy.  No one wants to take the time to learn anything, but rather we want to sit back and have everything spoon fed to us without having to exert any effort.   The Mass is Calvary represented, and if we cannot appreciate Latin for the many benefits it offers, then we should at least appreciate it because it draws our attention to the Cross, "And there was also a superscription written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS."--Luke 23:38.

 

I also agree with one priest who disliked when others called the EF, the Latin Mass, since there is also Greek and Hebrew in the liturgy.  Sure there isn't a lot, however, the significance of having all three in the liturgy is to guide our attention to Christ on the Cross.