What should the reformed liturgy look like?

Starting Sept. 14, the Roman liturgy will have two forms; the Ordinary and the Extraordinary. The latter is the Roman Missal of 1962, the most recent revision of a centuries old rite. The former is rightly seen as a work in progress in many ways given the disparity between the wishes of the Council Fathers and what was actually carried out in the name of reform.

While some have posted stories of abuses they’ve witnessed in the Latin Mass, the extraordinary form is largely celebrated in a way that is faithful to the prescriptions of the Missal. i.e. it is an accurate reflection of the liturgy as it is intended to be.

Of the Ordinary Form, the Holy Father said in his letter to bishops explaining the MP:

This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.

In other words, in “many places” what we experience in the Ordinary Form is not an accurate reflection of the liturgy as intended. Add to this those areas in which all of us know that the Council’s ideas of reform have been ignored, and it leads me to wonder, what would the Ordinary Form really look like if the reform of the liturgy was carried out faithfully, and the “deformations” the Holy Father mentioned were eliminated?

Deformations can be avoided by simply following the rubrics. If they read what was in black and did what was in red, there wouldn’t be any problems.

Many of the things that “traditionalists” deem to be deformations are not, in point of fact. The extension of the vernacular, for example, was allowed to be determined by bishops’ conferences, with the conferences decisions to be confirmed or ratified by the Holy See. Thus, while some think an all-vernacular Mass a “deformation,” it isn’t in reality.

There are as many interpretations on how the Novus Ordo should be celebrated as there are priests who do so.

One of the main problems is that the rubrics of the Novus Ordo leave plenty of room for option and interpretation. While there are many instances of outright Liturgical abuse, a lot of what we may think of abuse or irreverance or the like can often be defended with the rubrics.

The Novus Ordo takes on many forms: from a charismatic party that belongs in a Pentecostal meeting hall; to the average Haugen and Haas Mass with girl Altar severs and two dozen EMHCs; to a “bells and smells” Mass with Latin, Gregorian chant and an Ad orientum Altar. The cafeteria is open.

And that is what needs reformation: the options. No one is saying it doesn’t need to be tightened up.

Ad orientem, no EMHC’s unless in extreme cases, no girl altar servers, and remove everything that the Council did not call for. I’m sick and tired of “in the spirit of Vat. II” when it should be, “in accordance to Vat. II.”

The Council is not the be all and end all in matters of liturgical discipline. You can question the prudential judgement of a practice, but I think it’s wrong to set one authority against another. I don’t like the idea of girls serving at the altar, but it was permitted by the lawful and competent authority: the Pope.

I’d like it if it were tightened up - there should be fewer options. Why on earth are there three penitential rites and so many Eucharistic prayers? And why are they so arbitrarily used?

Possibly like this : stagnes.net/media/documents/latin_english_mass.pdf

There could be options such as the Eucharist prayer, the preparation of the Gifts, in Vernacular. but in general parts of the Mass such as the Dominus Vobiscum, the Signum Crucis, the Ite Missa Est, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei in Latin, all else could be in Vernacular, which I’m trying by memory to remember all the portions of mass by which Pope Paul VI prescribed that the faithful should know and be able to sing in Latin in his collection of simple Latin chant known as Jubilate Deo. Hopefully these combined with appropriate Vernacular and Latin chant composed prior to the 1960s, say using the Adoremus Hymnal like the Mass at Our Lady of the Angels Monastery on EWTN. Mass should look like EWTN’s mass, save it should be Ad orientem, and with an Altar rail with reception of Communion on the tongue whilst kneeling at the railing, with proper genuflections, and The usage of Eucharist Prayer I (Based off of the Roman canon) to be used hopefully exclusively in the future, with a generous amount of incense as well, and the priest adorned in very traditional Vestments like a say a fiddleback or something similar. This just my opinion. Sorry, I know I’m kind of disjointed in my thoughts.

And that’s the problem. You can’t on one hand say, “everything would be fine and dandy with the Novus Ordo, if it wasn’t for those darn “abuses”. You know, priests doing their own thing, not following the rubrics set by liturgical law. If priests just followed Rome, you wouldn’t have this liturgical confusion. SSPX, FFSP, ICCP would be unnecessary because the Novus Ordo would be traditional as it should have been”. Sound familiar??:eek:
The problem is, Communion standing and in the hand, is allowed by the Church, altar girls is allowed by the Church, the tabernacle being thrown out of the Church is allowed by the Church, the gutting of our Churches is allowed by the Church,need I go on??
These are not “abuses”. they are LAWFUL expressions of the N.O. So don’t complain about all those “abuses” messing up the Novus Ordo, O.K.?, the ARE the Novus Ordo and are allowed and approved by ROME.:eek:

I agree with the point that abuses are one thing, the NO itself is another. Rid the NO liturgy of every single abuse, and we’re still left with a work in progress that is very much still wanting.

I recently re-read The Spirit of the Liturgy, by then Card. Ratzinger. Excellent book if anyone is interested. It gives a real sense for how much we have abandoned very meaningful expressions of the liturgy’s true spirit.

Naive or not, my hope is that the MP is a good step toward accelerating the development of the NO.

bp0.blogger.com/_s4Acjg90phk/RsQDA2ozbJI/AAAAAAAABRU/RxG624T62YU/s400/assumption+008.jpg

Something like this! Because some NO masses are amazing! :slight_smile:

It is possible that this may be a N.O. Mass. I mean you can do it like this, but you would really have to beg, write letters get permission, and probably not,I mean how many places in the world is the N.O like this? You can probably count them on one hand, maybe. But, yes, this you know it’'s one of the many possibilities in an “optional” liturgy like the N.O. [Edited by Moderator]

Just to add some info, this is The Birmingham (UK) Oratory. I don’t know how much they had to beg but all I can say that the Solemn Latin Masses which I like to attend once in a while or on special feast are amazing and if all masses were like this one I would be very very very happy. That’s why I’m answering the question ‘What should the reformed liturgy look like?’ with this.

What’s everyone’s opinion of the “Transition (Hybrid???) Mass” that existed between the 62 and 70 Masses? That’s the one that I trained as an Altar Boy.

We still had the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, the Canon was in Latin, but all the Readings, Introit, Collect, etc. were in English.

The hybrid 1965 Ordo Missae would work just as well.

That’s fine, but you still got the TEXT of the N.O. and no matter how much you cover it with Tridentine trappings, it’s still the N.O.
I mean,traditionalists are’t as intellectually “shallow” as many enlightened Liberals and Neo-Con’s think—it’s not just the externals-----it’s what IS SAID by the priest at Mass as well. Don’t you ever think about that? We could have a Lutheran or Episcopal service done up traditional and it would look just like the pic above, but it’s what is SAID that also matters, you know, as Aquinus would say* form* and matter. :smiley:

It is probably the best example of the Mass of Vatican II. It was just swept away by Bugnini et al.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.