The Proper Of The Mass

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1373718' date='Aug 29 2007, 04:54 PM']I sincerely hope it works both ways, because the extraordinary form could use some definite improvement as well.[/quote]
I prefer the term enrichment, and I don't think the forma ordinaria has much to offer to the forma extraordinaria in this regard. I believe in the ideals of the "reform of the reform" camp, of which the Pope's writings on the liturgy are a central contribution.

So there is no mistake, I confess that I believe in the ideals expressed in Sacrosanctum Concilium, but I also believe that the current forma ordinaria is not a faithful implementation of the council. Indeed, in my perception the liturgical situation prior to the council was in need of a deeper renewal of liturgical piety; the liturgical situation today is a veritable crisis with far reaching and at quite often scandalous consequences. The Pope has stated that he sees the promotion of the rites of 1962 as an important step toward a more faithful implementation of the council.

In light of this and many other things I am of the view that the "mutual enrichment" which the motu proprio speaks of is quite lopsided. ;-)

[Chiquitunga]

[quote name='photosynthesis' post='1364332' date='Aug 20 2007, 11:14 AM']The celebrent was from the local diocese, but there was a choir comprised of men and women from a Carmelite Monastery in Philly. No one in the choir was in a religious habit, however, all of the women were wearing mantillas.[/quote]

I've never been there, but that's the choir that sings at the chapel of the [url="http://home.att.net/~chorus/page4.html"]Discalced Carmelites there[/url] - but not the actual nuns themselves. Here's another page for the [url="http://carmelitenunsstjoseph.org/Phil.htm"]Carmelites in Philadelphia[/url].

I went to a Nuptial Solemn High Mass at St. John Cantius, which had a mixture of both Victoria's [i]Missa O Magnum Mysterium[/i] & Gregorian chant. It was beautiful!

[Chiquitunga]

[quote name='Margaret Clare' post='1374103' date='Aug 30 2007, 08:45 AM']I went to a Nuptial Solemn High Mass at St. John Cantius, which had a mixture of both Victoria's [i]Missa O Magnum Mysterium[/i] & Gregorian chant. It was beautiful! [/quote]
of the 1962 Missal, just to be sure to say. Photo, if you'd like me to send you exactly what parts of the Mass were Victoria's music ( which was a women's choir I believe ) and what was Gregorian chant (a men's choir - though I know the women chanted the Processional ), I'd be happy to. I still have the program. :j

Edited August 30, 2007 by Margaret Clare

[brendan1104]

[quote]I thought that you'd want what I want.
Sorry, my dear.
But where are the clowns?...[/quote]

Sorry that you and Pope St. Pius V disagree.

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1373718' date='Aug 29 2007, 03:54 PM']I sincerely hope it works both ways, because the extraordinary form could use some definite improvement as well.[/quote]

[brendan1104]

Even at the Novus Ordo some things are non-changeable. Specific rubrics are in place for any way the TLM is celebrated (Low Mass, Missa Cantata, Solemn Mass, Pontifical Mass, etc.) With that argument, you can change the formula of consecration, or begin the liturgy with the last blessing and end with the sign of the cross.

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1368472' date='Aug 22 2007, 08:05 PM']That is exactly where my thoughts are leading as well, no ritual is set in stone.[/quote]

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Margaret Clare' post='1374103' date='Aug 30 2007, 11:45 AM']I've never been there, but that's the choir that sings at the chapel of the [url="http://home.att.net/~chorus/page4.html"]Discalced Carmelites there[/url] - but not the actual nuns themselves. Here's another page for the [url="http://carmelitenunsstjoseph.org/Phil.htm"]Carmelites in Philadelphia[/url].

I went to a Nuptial Solemn High Mass at St. John Cantius, which had a mixture of both Victoria's [i]Missa O Magnum Mysterium[/i] & Gregorian chant. It was beautiful! [/quote]
Interesting... My nuptial Mass is probably going to have Victoria's Missa O Quam Gloriosum with the motet as the processional.

[quote name='Margaret Clare' post='1374128' date='Aug 30 2007, 12:32 PM']of the 1962 Missal, just to be sure to say. Photo, if you'd like me to send you exactly what parts of the Mass were Victoria's music ( which was a women's choir I believe ) and what was Gregorian chant (a men's choir - though I know the women chanted the Processional ), I'd be happy to. I still have the program. :j[/quote]
The Missa O Magnum Mysterium is what we call a parody Mass, which means that it's a setting of the Ordinary of the Mass which is based on musical motifs used in a certain motet or other song. In this case, he's parodying his own work. The Missa O Quam Gloriosum is the same type of thing.

Edited August 30, 2007 by photosynthesis

[kateri05]

[quote]So there is no mistake, I confess that I believe in the ideals expressed in Sacrosanctum Concilium, but I also believe that the current forma ordinaria is not a faithful implementation of the council.[/quote]

i completely agree. however, NEITHER is the current forma extraordinaria a faithful implementation.

hence the need for mutual reform.

[brendan1104]

Kateri, the TLM existed LONG before Sacrosanctum Concilium and its Council were even imagined! The TLM is not to be changed. The new form is different.

[kateri05]

[quote]Kateri, the TLM existed LONG before Sacrosanctum Concilium and its Council were even imagined![/quote]

i don't at all see how its age is relevant. just because something is old, doesn't mean it doesn't need renewal. your post makes no sense.

SC and VII called for a reform, a renewal of the Mass at it was celebrated. at the time, this was the extra. ord. form. therefore, this renewal applies.

L_D and i were agreeing that the ord. form doesn't fulfill what the Council called for either, so both are actually in need of continued renewal to fulfill what the Council Fathers wanted.

please read all of the above posts because we already went over all of this.

Edited August 31, 2007 by kateri05

[Laudate_Dominum]

We actually disagree on that point kateri. I don't believe that the forma extraordinaria is in need of reform. I realize that liturgy is living and that organic development will take place, but I don't think that revolutionizing the 1962 rites would serve any purpose whatsoever. This is not the same as calling into question the desires of the council since the situation of today is something quite different. We're talking about an extraordinary form of the Roman rite that is only marginally celebrated and that is basically retained for the benefit of those who are specifically attached to these rites. To "reform" the 1962 rites at this point in history would undermine the reasons behind John Paul II and Benedict XVI's motu proprio's on the use of these rites.
Further I believe that the objective liturgical tradition that these rites embody is crucial to the faithful implementation of the council's wishes in the forma ordinaria and thus ought to be seen as a touchstone of tradition for the renewal of the new Mass. It is a living witness to the historical life of the Church that is likely intended to be celebrated as it is in order to infuse its spirit into the future of the forma ordinaria.
The implication that the liturgical reform is incomplete until the forma extraordinaria implements the council is false since this is not what the recent Popes have indicated at all and it assumes that the liturgical reform demands an absolute uniformity in the Roman rite which clearly is not how the Pope see's things.

There are many more reasons behind my view but I just wanted to say that i don't think we totally agree on this stuff.

[kateri05]

oh i'm sorry, thats my fault, we agreed on the first part of my statement, that the ord. rite has not full implemented the council. i didn't clarify properly!

i know we don't agree on the second half of my sentence

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='kateri05' post='1374576' date='Aug 30 2007, 10:01 PM']oh i'm sorry, thats my fault, we agreed on the first part of my statement, that the ord. rite has not full implemented the council. i didn't clarify properly!

i know we don't agree on the second half of my sentence [/quote]
Np.

One thing I'm sure we have in common is interest in seeing how things actually unfold as time goes on. I have a lot of speculations anyway.