Since I can’t have a well-done Ordinary Form, can I have the Extraordinary?
Scelata over at Scelata makes an excellent point in a recent post:
-----------
But now, praise Benedict and the motu proprio, I am at least entitled to ask for that, whereas I am not entitled to ask for the Ordinary Form with the Ordinary sung in Latin.
Or the Ordinary Form with the priest facing ad orientem. Or the Ordinary Form with no jokes. Or the Ordinary Form without being asked to squawk Lord of the Dance. Or the Ordinary Form without a glad-handing rotary convention inserted where the Pax Christi is offered. Or the Ordinary Form where no adolescent in a football jersey will address me from the sanctuary. Or the Ordinary Form with no mention of Jambalaya or sports enthusiasms.
So I am asking for the Extraordinary Form.
And my aspirations are rightful.
-----------
I am blessed not to have seen much along the line of Jambalaya or sports at Sunday Mass, but I sure do wish I could request use of ad orientem. Latin would be nice, but honestly, it is less of a priority for me.
We all know (or at least SHOULD know) about Pope Benedict’s writings on ad orientem. Given that Summorum Pontificum is, in many respects, a fulfillment of a vision set out by the late Msgr. Klaus Gamber, and given the Pope’s agreement with Gamber (and, AFAICT, every serious liturgist who really examines the question objectively) on the ad orientem issue, might we see something written by His Holiness in the not-too-distant future?
posted by Cantor @ 7:37 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
My thoughts are that the 3 main things to "fix" in the typical Novus Ordo are: 1) Propers in some form (even if it's just relevant hymns/metrical psalms) 2) ad orientem 3) Latin. Of course, this isn't in the order of EASIEST to fix...
And as I've said before, I really dislike the whole "I don't see the ordinary form done to my liking, so I'm going to the extraordinary form" attitude. It cheapens all the work that you and I do to have reverent Masses, to say nothing of priests who do the liturgy well.
-Gavin
Gavin -- I agree that the "ditch the ordinary form because it's not done how I like it" attitude isn't so healthy. I also wonder whether the 1962 Missal Mass will _necessarily_ be done any more properly and reverently than the Pauline Mass.
Remember that the last generation of priests trained in the E.F. were used to the "20-minute mumble Mass." This might have been quieter (which some find more conducive to reverence), but I can't imagine that they were more reverent or respectful of God's time than the Masses for which Cantor provides music.
I imagine the hope is that the added ritual of the 1962 Mass will automatically generate an attitude of reverence. In modern practice, something else seems to be happening: priests who take up the '62 seem to be more liturgically savvy than their counterparts, and many of their parishoners know what they want out of liturgy. So the voluntary use of the '62 naturally generates a reverent atmosphere, because it's taken up voluntarily by reverent people. (Of course, those celebrating according to the Pauline Missal may also be reverent; it's just that voluntarily switching against the default Missal usually indicates some interest in liturgy.) If the '62 is mandated for a nonreverent parish, I posit that the lack of reverence will simply change forms.
I should clarify - I don’t necessarily agree with Scelata’s reasoning, but I think there is something to think about there - if I just want Latin and ad orientem, why does it seem I will have better luck requesting the EF than with the OF?
You'll be luckier because it is human nature to 'stick with what you know.' Priest/celebrants who are not liturgy-knowledgeable (in the highest sense) are NOT going to use ad orientem in the Ordinary form, because it's not "what they know." (Assuming the altar is configured to allow either-way celebration of the Mass.)
I don't think B-16 will make too much noise about altar placement; it will give every dying Liturgeist (and they are getting old and dying) the Big Tantrum Fodder: MONEY.
"And as I've said before, I really dislike the whole "I don't see the ordinary form done to my liking, so I'm going to the extraordinary form" attitude. It cheapens all the work that you and I do to have reverent Masses, to say nothing of priests who do the liturgy well."
But from what I've read, you basically don't care for the Extraordinary Form, so you're coming at this from a different direction.
I don't think my expression of this preference for the time being, (which I thought I made clear,) "cheapens" MY work (I am in the saem line of work...) in the slightest, so there's no need to feel slighted or put upon in some way, either on your own behalf or that of your priests.
If I had your pastor, I gather I would have different options from amongst which to choose.
I imagine food stuffs and sports teams hardly ever come up in the midst of the dismissal at your parish, for instance?
I was not making those things up.
Nor am I talking about abandoning my parish.
But I feel the need for spritual and liturgical relief from time to time, regardless of someone else's dislike of it...
(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)
All I can say is those who want the ordinary form celebrated well, reverently, consistently, with the proper propers, with Latin, and ad orientem...
Please, please speak up. Tell others to speak up.
Let me assure you, there are folks who raise a terrible ruckus when they hear any Latin, and hymns are pushed aside in favor of proper chants, etc.
Post a Comment
<< Home