These are the first and last words I ever plan to write about liturgical reform, inspired by a well-done talk sponsored by the Oxford University Newman Society this evening.
The Extraordinary Form is a beautiful Mass that encourages contemplation and reverence. The Ordinary Form is an accessible Mass that encourages participation and community. Both have strengths and both have weaknesses. And supporters for either side fail to realize that arguments for either are almost always lacking an answer to one pivotal question:
What is the point? Why do we have a Mass?
It's a surprisingly difficult question to answer. Supporters of the Extraordinary Form would emphasize that it is to glorify God and celebrate the sacrifice. Supporters of the Ordinary Form would emphasize that it is to grow as individual Christians and as a Community through sharing Communion. Neither side would deny that either objective is important, but the question of emphasis is the crux of the argument.
As far as I know, there are currently no liturgies which give due weight to God without sacrificing some of the edification of the congregation--none which properly teach the congregation without sacrificing some of the dignity shown to God in a High Mass. Until both sides can concede that this ambiguity is inherent in the very idea of the Mass, there will be no true, viable, healthy liturgical reform.
The Extraordinary Form is a beautiful Mass that encourages contemplation and reverence. The Ordinary Form is an accessible Mass that encourages participation and community. Both have strengths and both have weaknesses. And supporters for either side fail to realize that arguments for either are almost always lacking an answer to one pivotal question:
What is the point? Why do we have a Mass?
It's a surprisingly difficult question to answer. Supporters of the Extraordinary Form would emphasize that it is to glorify God and celebrate the sacrifice. Supporters of the Ordinary Form would emphasize that it is to grow as individual Christians and as a Community through sharing Communion. Neither side would deny that either objective is important, but the question of emphasis is the crux of the argument.
As far as I know, there are currently no liturgies which give due weight to God without sacrificing some of the edification of the congregation--none which properly teach the congregation without sacrificing some of the dignity shown to God in a High Mass. Until both sides can concede that this ambiguity is inherent in the very idea of the Mass, there will be no true, viable, healthy liturgical reform.
3 comments:
Oh how many things I have to say.. I shall intentionally limit my comments for your sake. First, may I compliment you on your terminology. I would obviously expect nothing less from someone studying English but I think the Holy Father's choice in terms used for Mass according to the 1962 missal and according to the 1970 missal are intentional and significant. I agree that perhaps neither form is perfectly suited for the ends you envision. I would suggest you check out an Anglican Use mass if you get a chance. Particularly for you, I think it might offer a very good balance. Also, if you get bored, there is some *very* quick reading you might enjoy:
http://www.fdlc.org/Liturgy_Resources/Guardini/Chapter1.htm
This is perhaps the best reading on the liturgy in existence...
Also, I thought of you when I saw this the other day:
http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2007/11/newman-society-mass.html
Is that the talk you attended?
Love,
Ryan
How did I know that Jackson would be the first post here? Oh, Jackson--so predictable!
As for you question of what the Mass is for I think the answer can be found in a text found in both forms of the Roman Rite, the Suscipiat: :May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our good, and the good of all his Church."
If I am right in assuming that you think the positive statements you make about the OF are somehow lacking in the EF I would say two things. On participation, I think that the OF demands a certain type of participation i.e. that of following the Mass texts and being forced to respond, whereas the EF (in more ancient forms, but in particular the dialogue Mass of Pius XII) allows this type of participation as well many others that the faithful want. It seems very strange to say that only one type of spirituality of the Mass in valid, or that more contemplative forms of participation are less "active".
As for the formation of community, I would say that this is done primarily in the communal sharing of the Body of Christ, and that this most perfectly unites God's people to each other. However, In the OF the community can seem very inward looking and introverted, whereas in the EF the community are forever looking towards God, not each other.
I look forward to further posts!
Post a Comment