North of the Shire

There is something that really bugs me whenever the liturgical discussion comes to the fore. The latest I heard this was yesterday on the Across the Nation show with Bob Dunning on the Catholic Channel on Sirius. I don’t wish to pick on Bob Dunning because he is just one example of an understanding that is all too common. Besides that, he’s a nice guy, and does a good job as a broadcaster/host in the talk format on the Catholic Channel. While I don’t always agree with his opinions on issues, he usually has a balanced presentation and a wide range of guests.

Having said that, I still get irritated and talk heatedly to the radio when someone like him presents the liturgical discussion as a choice between the “Latin Mass”, ie., the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, and the “Vernacular Mass”, ie., the Ordinary Form.

Assumed in the idea of the Ordinary Form for Bob Dunning and so many others is no Latin, no ad orientum for the priest, no communion rails, etc. In other words, a package that misses out on the reality of what the liturgical reform of Vatican II actually mandated as opposed to what later was permitted.

If you want to see what a Ordinary Form Mass looks like done with a closer adherence to the actual intent of Vatican II, check out EWTN daily Mass on most days.

There is a liberal use of Latin, a liberal use of Gregorian Chant or Gregorian style of singing the Latin parts of the Mass. The communion rails are not there, and due to a long-standing order from the Bishop the Mass is celebrated facing the people (because the Mass is being broadcast). But it reminds us of what Father Fessio has long contended, that the Ordinary Form can be celebrated with much more reverence than what we are accustomed to in most parishes and many of the changes we see from the Extraordinary Form were not mandated by Vatican II, but rather are innovations that came about through the experimentation of individuals, liturgists, priests, etc.

We should be aware of the fact that the Ordinary Form of the Mass can be done entirely in Latin, the language that it was written in and the English translation of which is in the process of being corrected as we speak. Moreover, if a parish or diocese decides that communion rails are back, there is no reason they cannot be, because Vatican II did not mandate that in the first place. If a parish or diocese decides that ad orientum is the way to go, the case is the same. Or, if a parish of diocese should insist on communion on the tongue, the same holds true.

I guess my beef is that we are always presented with a false choice. If the Ordinary Form were celebrated in all of its potential, ie., Latin, ad orientum and communion rails with reception on the tongue, we would then have a proper comparison to make with the Extraordinary Form. I suspect that folks like Bob Dunning don’t even realize that such a thing is even possible.