Reforming The Ordinary Form With Prayers From The Extraordinary Form

[journeyman]

I shall defer to the more learned members of the phamily in matters of development and appropriateness of the liturgy.

Pope Benedict XVI has provided the laity with a clear choice in forms of liturgy. In the grand old American tradition, the people may now vote with their feet.

If St. Thomas More is correct, the 1962 (extraordinary) form will overwhelm the ordinary form. Despite their best efforts, the US Bishops will notice.

Let them then exercise their pastoral role as shepherd for the flock through service; one such service may be providing their priests and faithful with a liturgy which appropriately balances the concepts of sacrifice and communion.

[jeffpugh]

L_D, that was some phat posting goin on there... I have a few questions to ask, but I'll PM you (if I remember them tomorrow).
[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1426927' date='Nov 29 2007, 07:57 PM']The the Sarum and Anglican Uses are radically different. The Sarum Use was form of the traditional Roman Mass, while the Anglican Use is a form of the Miss promulgated in 1969. To demonstrate the differences, see the texts of Beach:

The Sarum Use
[url="http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Sarum/English.htm"]http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Sarum/English.htm[/url]

The Anglican Use
[url="http://www.atonementonline.com/orderofmass/Rite1.html"]http://www.atonementonline.com/orderofmass/Rite1.html[/url]

BTW, L_D, your posts were awesome and very informative as usual. [/quote]
The link to the Sarum right doesn't work for me. Any other links? I've never heard of it... where did it come from?
This thread is turning out to be really interesting....

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1428446' date='Dec 2 2007, 10:17 PM']L_D, that was some phat posting goin on there... I have a few questions to ask, but I'll PM you (if I remember them tomorrow).

The link to the Sarum right doesn't work for me. Any other links? I've never heard of it... where did it come from?
This thread is turning out to be really interesting....[/quote]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13479a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13479a.htm[/url]

[jeffpugh]

Thanks, man.

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1426927' date='Nov 29 2007, 07:57 PM']The the Sarum and Anglican Uses are radically different. The Sarum Use was form of the traditional Roman Mass, while the Anglican Use is a form of the Miss promulgated in 1969. To demonstrate the differences, see the texts of Beach:

The Sarum Use
[url="http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Sarum/English.htm"]http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Sarum/English.htm[/url]

The Anglican Use
[url="http://www.atonementonline.com/orderofmass/Rite1.html"]http://www.atonementonline.com/orderofmass/Rite1.html[/url]

BTW, L_D, your posts were awesome and very informative as usual. [/quote]
Ahh... just came back to this for a couple of comments one... "ahh... when the mass was in English (sort of stealing this quote from an Anglican-turned-Catholic)", and... I find the sarum mass interesting (the link works now)... especially how they prayed for the king after the Pope and ordinary. Where did this mass originate? And was it in Latin before? Or was it always in a vernacular text?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1430892' date='Dec 7 2007, 06:45 PM']Ahh... just came back to this for a couple of comments one... "ahh... when the mass was in English (sort of stealing this quote from an Anglican-turned-Catholic)", and... I find the sarum mass interesting (the link works now)... especially how they prayed for the king after the Pope and ordinary. Where did this mass originate? And was it in Latin before? Or was it always in a vernacular text?[/quote]

The Sarum was never in the vernacular: I posted a link to a translation.

[Laudate_Dominum]

The Sarum rite is in the same liturgical family as the Tridentine Roman rite (Missal of Pope Pius V and so on) and they have common roots going back over a thousand years. It was the local rite of the diocese of Salisbury and being ancient and venerable it was not abrogated following Trent. During the Protestant revolt in England the Sarum rite largely provided the foundation for the Anglican liturgy.

I've seen a video clip on youtube of the Sarum rite in action.. Let me see if I can find it.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21pnAoiGnjs"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21pnAoiGnjs[/url]

[jeffpugh]

Nice, but there are some comments that need some adressing... meh, it's everywhere though. Anywho, was that valid? And where is the tabernacle?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1433901' date='Dec 13 2007, 03:15 PM']Nice, but there are some comments that need some adressing... meh, it's everywhere though. Anywho, was that valid? And where is the tabernacle?[/quote]
I don't have many answers on this but I believe that was the Sarum Mass of Fr. Sean Finnegan at Oxford some years ago. I don't know where the tabernacle is but it may be that this chapel at Oxford doesn't have one. It may also be that the traditional altar setup for the Sarum rite does not include the tabernacle on the altar. I really don't know and tend to see this as a feature of the chapel and not necessarily a statement about the Sarum rite.

[url="http://thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.com/2006/10/some-images-of-sarum-use.html"]http://thenewliturgicalmovement.blogspot.c...-sarum-use.html[/url]

Since the priest is a Catholic priest I'm sure the Mass was valid but I don't know if it was licit. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and suppose that it was.

I love how the priest keeps his arms in a cruciform posture after the consecration.

[img]http://www.execulink.com/~dtribe/blog/sarum7.jpg[/img]

[rkwright]

wow thats cool...

that choir is amazing. Why can't we have music like that instead of On Eagles Wings!?!

[qfnol31]

I don't have the opportunity to go to a Tridentine Mass all the time (and honestly I am pretty happy with the Novus Ordo at the National Shrine right now), but the last time I went I thought there were a couple things the Tridentine Mass could learn from the Novus Ordo and Liturgical movement from the middle of last century. I think that both expressions have something to offer to each other and that the old expression should be reformed slightly. I don't call for the two expressions to look like one another, but that the Tridentine Mass be reformed into a more elegant and thoughtful Mass. I for one think the calls of Vatican II to reform the Liturgy might have some merit.

The first thing I would change is the placement of the last Gospel reading before [i]Ite Missa Est[/i]. It doesn't make any sense if it is afterwards. Also, the doubling of the [i]Confiteor[/i] is superfluous.

The dialogue Mass is not a result of the 1960s (or even the 1950s) but was something discussed by theologians like Romano Guardini in the 1930s. He was a great influence on Pope Benedict's theology if you ever want to read some great works on the Mass. The songs should be sung as a part of Mass (I know a great supporter of the old Mass who thinks that the greatest thing from Vatican II was its change of the meaning of music in the Mass.

I think the readings should be in the local language (like the homily is) while the rest of the Mass remains in Latin. Perhaps, though this is a stretch, the proper prayers could be translated (though I'm not completely set on this).

I think at times Holy Communion should be distributed under both Sacred Species. There isn't a reason not to have both Species much of the time (intinction would be great and is highly regarded in the East and is a part of our larger tradition).

There were a few more things I thought could be changed into a better Mass, but I've forgotten them at this time.

I'll post some of the things I think should be changed with the ordinary expression of the Mass later.

[TNSeminarian]

Now, I must admit that I didn't make it through reading all of the posts that were on this forum, so I apologize if I am reiterating what may have been written before. Normally I would refrain from posting, but I feel a need to at present, so hopefully what I put won't be misunderstood or incite others to sin.

I think this topic is ridiculous. While I agree that there are points where the [i][/i]celebration[i][/i] of the Novus Ordo must be improved - i.e. more Latin, facing east, reinstallation of altar rails, among other things - I think that for laymen to undertake such discussions is dangerous. We already have a crisis among the laity thinking that they are on par with priests, we don't need it in the opposite direction wherein we say that we havn't the dignity of the ontological change of the priest, but we have greater knowledge than him as well. It can bring about an incredible amount of sinful hubris. As a seminarian I am one of those who is most susceptible to such leanings, especially learning more about the Sacred Liturgy and its glorious history. However, I think that better time could be spent praying for proper changes in the Mass to happen, rather than talking about it incessantly online. Many well thought responses were put, and very educational (I often learn much from these posts), but constant talk about such things is dangerous as it may incite many to become disillusioned with Holy Mother Church and fail to see that despite some of the inappropriate occurances in the Sacred Liturgy, she is still alive and well and acting in the lives of her faithful.

I suppose in the end I am simply asking that these topics which arrogate themselves the place of liturgists, seeking to put forth opinions, or elicit opinions, stop, because they are dangerous. If perhaps they would take the form of explanation, rather than inspiration, or revolution (however small) it would be worlds better. I learn a lot from many things that are posted here, but I think that putting opinion is dangerous and that we as a Church need to be careful of editorializing too much at the expense of misinforming those who may not know, or may be led astray by what are simply opinions, and not the teachings or practices of the Church.

[qfnol31]

Unfortunately I have only known about 5 Priests (outside of FSSP/SSPX) in my life who have taken an interest in this topic.

The majority of the seminarians I know are either indifferent or against the extraordinary expression of the Mass, and that makes me really sad.

I am a graduate theology major right now and know that one day I will be teaching seminarians training for the Priesthood and I take a great interest in issues that revolve around the Liturgy.

I agree that this is most properly left for the Priests, but unfortunately most I have known will not speak out in favour of the tradition.

[Seven77]

I think that the VII cycle of Scripture Readings could enrich the EO Form. a new cycle for both forms? the passages that are not in the VII cycle being included.

[Resurrexi]

As author of this thread, I'd just like to remind everyone that this thread is about reforming the Ordinary Form with the Extraordinary Form, not vice versa. I therefore ask that if you wish to discuss reforming the Extraordinary Form with the Ordinary Form, please make another thread.
Thank you!

[qfnol31]

I think this question is relevant to the current thread, but if it's not, then I apologize.

This also isn't a response to you as much as your comment raised this question in my mind.

Is reforming the ordinary form of the Mass more important/necessary and better than reforming the extraordinary form of the Mass?

[Resurrexi]

My opinion (which after all doesn't count for much) is that yes it is more important and necessary. Looking at the probable future of the Roman Rite, they will probably both be reformed and made into one form, and I just hope the Extraordinary Use isn't altered to the point where it is no longer seems to be the the same Mass which was used in the Roman Rite for more than 400 years.

[Moneybags]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1423303' date='Nov 21 2007, 03:05 PM']Some other questions I would have asked is I could have added more than three questions on the poll:

Should Psalm 42 and the prologue to the Gospel of St. John be allowed at the beginning and end of the Ordinary Form of the Mass, respectively?

Should the prayer "Suscipe, sancta Trinitas, hanc oblationem..." be a part of the offertory prayers before the "Orate Fratres..." in the Ordinary Form?

Should the parts that are now optional (e. g. the listing of the names of the various Saints) in the Roman Canon when the Ordinary Form is used be made mandatory?

Should the Words of Consecration in the Ordinary Form be changed to be the same as those of the Extraordinary Form (i. e. should "HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, QUOD PRO VOBIS TRADÉTUR." be changed to "HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM."? And should "HIC EST ENIM CALIX SÁNGUINIS MEI NOVI ET AETÉRNI TESTAMÉNTI, QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDÉTUR IN REMISSIÓNEM PECCATÓRUM. HOC FÁCITE IN MEAM COMMEMORATIÓNEM." be changed to "HIC EST ENIM CALIX SÁNGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET ÆTÉRNI TESTAMÉNTI: MYSTÉRIUM FIDEI:QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDÉTURIN REMISSIÓNEM PECCATÓRUM." with the words "Hæc quotiescúmque fecéritis, in mei memóriam faciétis." being said after the Consecration of the Chalice and not part of the Consecration itself?)

Should the Memorial Acclamation be abolished?[/quote]
[b]
YES to all questions above and to all poll questions.[/b]

[qfnol31]

Part of my reason for posting the way that the Tridentine Mass can be reformed was an extended way of saying in what ways I [i]don't[/i] think the new Mass should be reformed, or if it is reformed, what things I think should stay.

I don't think you can just add the Gospel after the [i]Ite Missa Est[/i], but think that a new way should be used. (Here I'm talking about the Ordinary Expression of the Mass, slowly answering the original question).