Saturday's Mass in the Extraordinary Form

Some data about me: born in 1945, Tridentine altar BOY in the mid 50s to early 60s. I don't miss the Tridentine form a single bit. At our Christ-centered seder, the host doesn't turn his back on the family.

We seek not the face of the priest in the Mass, but the Face of Almighty God.

With regards to the bishop being dressed by all of those people... what you see as pomp, I see as an act of humility. What man wants others to dress him?

The majesty of it all is worthy of worship to God. When you go out for a special dinner do you not take more time to get dressed up? Do those who celebrate the weddings put out fine china and silverware? Why then would we not put out our very best for an act of worship to God?

Recall the famous complaint in Scipture, about wasting oil on Jesus. All of those majestic things you witnessed were like that oil.

In time Michael, these things will be better understood. It's new to so many people that the first reaction people have is either very favorable or very unfavorable. It's ok if it doesn't float your boat. It's good to recognize, that it does float the boat of many, including myself.

Dear Michael:

Thank you for your openness. Even considering your lack of "resonance" with the Extraordinary Form, it was a good thing that you watched it.

You wrote:

The thing I was most interested to see if whether or not the ad orientem posture, with the celebrant and the people facing in the same direction, really would make the Mass seem more focused on Christ in the sacrament and less on His presence in the gathered community of the faithful.

As a priest who regularly celebrates both the Extraordinary Form and the Novus Ordo ad orientem, I would suggest that there is a great difference between watching a Mass on TV and actually participating in one for real. I don't think it would be wise to translate your reactions from a passive viewing to what you might experience as a participant. After all, liturgy is not a spectator sport.

Secondly, I'd suggest that there is something of a "learning curve", or perhaps what I might call an "experience curve" in getting the feel of either the EF or even the NO celebrated ad orientem. There is a definite difference in the psychological orientation of these, and this takes some getting used to. An analogy might be the discomfort and adjustment a lifelong Baptist might feel in attending an Orthodox liturgy, even if he had studied the Orthodox liturgy beforehand and "knew" what to expect.

As a pastor, I observed that the first 2-3 times I celebrated Mass (Novus Ordo in English) ad orientem, (this was following a lengthy period of catechesis and preparation) there were no complaints. I think that was because most people were simply taking in the novelty of the experience. It was only after the 3rd or 4th time that I began hearing some complaints or misgivings (a very small number relative to the size of the parish, but I nonetheless tried to respond to them seriously and sensitively). But after a couple of months, most of those people with misgivings seemed to have overcome them. It seems to me that, once people got over their discomfort with things not being "familiar", they were largely able to begin to internalize the experience on its own terms.

Finally, you wrote:

So, I did not bring any nostalgic sensibilities to my viewing of it.

I'm not sure if you are implying that people attracted to the EF or ad orientem are driven primarily by "nostalgia". But that canard has been raised often enough elsewhere that I'll respond to it. I too am a post-Vatican II Catholic. I did not experience Mass in the Old Rite until I was in graduate school in my late 20's. So I am not "nostalgic" for anything. And if you attend EF liturgies, you will see many young people and young families, who similarly have no memories of the pre-Vatican II church and are similarly not driven by nostalgia.

What I was driven by (and I can only speak for myself) is a love for the richness and beauty of the Church's liturgical patrrimony, and the desire to more deeply participate in it. When I discovered the depth and richness of the Church's liturgical tradition, for me it was like finding an exquisitely beautiful work of art or tapestry. But that tapestry is not merely a lifeless picture, but something that still has a life and voice even to speak to us today.

I'd imagine that many of those attracted to more "traditional" liturgical expressions might have similar attitudes.

At any rate, it is poor form, and perhaps even insulting, to dismiss the aspirations of those attracted to traditional worship as mere "nostalgia". I hope that was not what you intended.

In the meantime, Oremus invicem.

I watched the Mass on EWTN Saturday, and although a classmate of Bp Slattery, it left me cold as well. I felt embarrassed for Ed Slattery, walking up that long aisle in the cappa magna. It was great pageantry, but poor liturgy.
I'm sorry he feels the need to push this sort of production.

One thinks of the H.C.Andersen fairy tale of The Emperor's New Clothes. Maybe there the emperor and courtiers were indeed dressed in finest regalia, but it required the eyes of the child to see that that display was all empty and meaningless.

"If some people find their faith edified by the Extraordinary Form, I am all for it" ... but the question is, Faith in what? Because I'm not at all sure to what degree this faith is still Christian! It strikes me as deliberate alienation rather than transcendence.
The idea seems to be that the spiritual has as little connection as possible with this world, that the Mass should be a time of escape from everyday reality, instead of an experience that brings us more closely in contact with it, with each other and with ourselves in the world.
"Whatever floats your boat" has a ring of relativism, rightly condemned by Benedict - I don't think we should so easily accept all varieties of faith as being totally valid expressions of Christianity, but rather see them as inadequate stepping-stones (all of us rely on varieties of these), which need constant questioning. The problem I find with the Extraordinary Form is that it leaves no room for such questioning and ambiguity - it's too sure it's right!

"Yes, there were more than the usual number of genuflections towards the altar, but most of the bowing and scraping, the knelt deacon putting on the bishop’s buskins, the multiple hand washings, etc., all of that seemed to put the focus on the celebrant not on the Lord." If that's his reaction to the Tridentine Mass, I could only imagine what Mr. Winters would think were he to witness any of the ancient liturgies used for well over a millenium in the East, each of which have 10x the number of these gesturs than does the Mass of Trent.

Drag will never be dead so long as the EF is around.

I endured this production for the first quarter century of my life, and if I never see it again that will be too soon.

As so eloquently and correctly stated in an NCR editorial, the liturgy is the visible expression of the arrangement of power in the Church. This Tridentine fiasco represents frightened old men trying to display power through pomp and pretentiousness. It is not the liturgy of the People of God.

Perhaps it could be compared to a very rich dessert. Magnificent to look at, great to experience, but not the stuff of a regular, healthy diet. I just cannot imagine Jesus is such a processional or wearing a 20 ft cape, much less asking someone else to carry it after him.

I am a child of Vatican II, so the old Mass is unfamiliar to me.

The author openly admits his ignorance in regard to the Forma Extraordinaria, and then proceeds to trash it.

And there, folks, you have it - spleen and all.

Mr. Winters: you can't be serious about the ad orientem posture putting more focus on the celebrant. I regularly attend both forms, and I can ensure you that the celebrant stands out much more in the ordinary form. In fact, it's the personality of the priest that often "carries" the liturgy in the ordinary form. Yes, the extraordinary form has a more elaborate ritual, but overall the priest's personality all but recedes into the background within the celebration of the Mass--except, of course, during the homily.

After reading Mr. Filteau's article about the D.C. Mass, I have to say I'm disappointed in NCR's coverage of the event. I didn't expect you all to be doing cartwheels, but it's almost as if NCR's correspondents were looking for things to criticize (typos in the pamphlet? really?!?). It's difficult for me to understand this latent hostility among Catholic progressives towards the Church's traditional form of worship. I can see someone being of the opinion that reform was necessary. But, I can't understand distaste for the form of the Mass that spiritually nurtured so many of the faithful and inspired thousands of saints. It's fine to have debates about liturgical matters. In the end, though, within the context of the Mass (in whatever form) our hearts and minds should be focused on the paschal mystery and upon our risen Lord.

Great comments,   Michael.     And you are right...   whatever floats your boat — both forms are licit and valid.     Personally,   I find all of the pomp and frou-frou to be a temptation in distraction from a Christ centered focus.     Being old enough to have familiarity with both forms,   I still prefer the simplicity of the Novus Ordo.
.
I got a chuckle from your Princess Di comparison :)     The same thought flew through my head during my last experience of High Mass (durn distractions...   sigh ).

"Yes, there were more than the usual number of genuflections towards the altar, but most of the bowing and scraping, the knelt deacon putting on the bishop’s buskins, the multiple hand washings, etc., all of that seemed to put the focus on the celebrant not on the Lord."
We refer to these as Medieval Liturgical "ACCRETIONS"...also part of the REVERSAL currently under way in Rome and elsewhere.

I’m old enough to remember the old Pontifical High Mass. As a teenager I was fascinated by it as a kind of reenactment of the ceremony surrounding one of the Prince-Bishops of the Holy Roman Empire but even in those pre Vatican II days with the emphasis on the celebrant, it seemed that all the additional ritual was to honor the Lord, the Lord Bishop, that is. I have a similar reaction to Papal Masses. They make good theater but are no “holier” than a week day mass in my parish church.

Forgive me for reflecting, distracted by the allusion, how differently we would now see her boys were she still alive, and they with her.

In that Muslim and loving home they would not have discovered alcohol so exhuberantly, for one thing.

Nor war.

They might in fact have followed her in visiting the many minefields proliferating in our world, and call for their ceasing.

I guess that is why the car crash . . .

But I guess it is the BRitish equivalent of our thinking what if the Kennedy's and King and Merton, etc., were not killed . . .

The kind of thing we dream about during over long and over distant and over boring liturgies in a language we do not fully know, which do not engage us in collegial Communion . . .

Michael:

Thank you for your openness. Even considering your lack of "resonance" with the Extraordinary Form, it was a good thing that you watched it.

You wrote:

The thing I was most interested to see if whether or not the ad orientem posture, with the celebrant and the people facing in the same direction, really would make the Mass seem more focused on Christ in the sacrament and less on His presence in the gathered community of the faithful.

As a priest who regularly celebrates both the Extraordinary Form and the Novus Ordo ad orientem, I would suggest that there is a great difference between watching a Mass on TV and actually participating in one for real. I don't think it would be wise to translate your reactions from a passive viewing to what you might experience as a participant. After all, liturgy is not a spectator sport.

Secondly, I'd suggest that there is something of a "learning curve", or perhaps what I might call an "experience curve" in getting the feel of either the EF or even the NO celebrated ad orientem. There is a definite difference in the psychological orientation of these, and this takes some getting used to. An analogy might be the discomfort and adjustment a lifelong Baptist might feel in attending an Orthodox liturgy, even if he had studied the Orthodox liturgy beforehand and "knew" what to expect.

As a pastor, I observed that the first 2-3 times I celebrated Mass (Novus Ordo in English) ad orientem, (this was following a lengthy period of catechesis and preparation) there were no complaints. I think that was because most people were simply taking in the novelty of the experience. It was only after the 3rd or 4th time that I began hearing some complaints or misgivings (a very small number relative to the size of the parish, but I nonetheless tried to respond to them seriously and sensitively). But after a couple of months, those people with misgivings largely overcame them. It seems to me that, once people got over their discomfort with things not being "familiar", they were largely able to begin to internalize the experience on its own terms.

Finally, you wrote:

So, I did not bring any nostalgic sensibilities to my viewing of it.

I'm not sure if you are implying that people attracted to the EF or ad orientem are driven primarily by "nostalgia". But that canard has been raised often enough elsewhere that I'll respond to it. I too am a post-Vatican II Catholic. I did not experience Mass in the Old Rite until I was in graduate school in my late 20's. So I am not "nostalgic" for anything. And if you attend EF liturgies, you will see many young people and young families, who similarly have no memories of the pre-Vatican II church and are similarly not driven by nostalgia.

What I was driven by (and I can only speak for myself) is a love for the richness and beauty of the Church's liturgical patrrimony, and the desire to more deeply participate in it. When I discovered the depth and richness of the Church's liturgical tradition, for me it was like finding an exquisitely beautiful work of art or tapestry. But that tapestry is not merely a lifeless picture, but something that still has a life and voice even to speak to us today.

I'd imagine that many of those attracted to more "traditional" liturgical expressions might have similar attitudes.

At any rate, it is poor form, and perhaps even insulting, to dismiss the aspirations of those attracted to traditional worship as mere "nostalgia". I hope that was not your intent, and I hope that my thoughts here will serve as a correction for those who do speak that way.

Thank you Michael. As an altar boy for the Tridentine Mass, the "Hybrid Mass" then the Pauline Mass (Novus Ordo) I would not return to the Tridentine Mass.

You state that without any nostalgic sensibilities it left you cold. I can tell you that I have lived through those nostalgic sensibilities and it still left me cold.

And in my opinion the ad orientem position is about the celebrant, we believe in the real presence of Christ in the host and you glimpse Christ but only a few times in the ad orientem posture but you see Christ on the altar throughout the remainder of the Mass after the consecration in the ad populum posture.

I'll take the Novus Ordo Mass any day thank you.

Can this be far behind when it comes to preferred ecclesiastical frou-frou for the Reform2 crowd?

143_carnaval_de_venise_7_feb_10.pps

The Mass was simply awesome. What most people dont understand, including the writer, is that this Mass was more than just an example of the Extraordinary form, but a Papal Mass. Which means, this was a 'high church' celebration, with all the bells and whistles included. Such a Papal celebration with a Bishop or Cardinal presiding (both were in fact present) requires what seems as excessive genuflecting, hand washing, etc. - and the typical Extraoridnary form of the Mass is nothing like this. Having said that, the Mass as celebrated was a great example of the 'Ars' or art of celebration we should use as the gravitational pull to make the Novus Ordo more reverent. When we see with our very eyes where we came from (and sometimes excessive) to what we have now, we can truely see how impoverished our current form of the Mass has become, at least in its typical practice. As for Ad Orientem, the NO form can (and should according to the rubrics) utilize this practice. As pointed out by someone else, when the priest faces the people, all sorts of problems enter in including: priest with strange facial expressions, gestures, jokes, personality quirkiness, etc. Better to focus on God during the Mass than the priest facing us!

Various people in every country get the mortgage loans in different creditors, just because it's comfortable.

I guess that people understand, how embarrassing the essay papers writing can be. However, wise students have an opportunity to puzzle out this problem utilizing an assistance of the english writing service.

When you ask: " write my essay ", you should be assured that your academic career is OK.