Extra/ordinary Form - or how much lace is necessary for a valid Mass?

Recent coverage of matters Liturgical elsewhere in the blogosphere has finally prompted me to give in and comment on something I had decided I was never going to refer to on this blog!

One of the difficulties I have with the response from a certain direction to Summorum Pontificum can be expressed as follows: what I feel I am seeing is a programme to deliberately promote the Extraordinary Form, and I do not think this was in any way the intention of Summorum Pontificum and Pope Benedict XVI's accompanying letter. A key indicator for me in this connection is the continued reference to the "Traditional Latin Mass", and what seems to me a clear and persistent unwillingness to adopt the language of "Ordinary Form" and "Extraordinary Form" that appears in Summorum Pontificum. This language seemed to me to be a very eloquent expression of the unity of the Roman Rite, with two forms, and called for a move away from the hermeneutic of discontinuity between what was previously perhaps known as the "novus ordo" and, as such, was seen as over and against the "Tridentine Mass". The whole point to this language of Ordinary Form/Extraordinary Form seems to me to be to do away with this kind of opposition within the lived experience of the Church. It seems to me that the promoters of the Extraordinary Form are taking the part of Summorum Pontificum that they like - the encouragement of a more generous provision - but disregarding the part that they are not so happy with - namely, the assimilation of the two forms to one another.

Another key aspect of Summorum Pontificum and the Pope's letter that is being left on one side in my view is that of the mutual enrichment of the two forms of the Rite. What I feel I am detecting are pre-emptive strikes in defence of those aspects of the Extraordinary Form that are open to adaptation in the light of the Ordinary Form (and, most obviously to me, and, in my view, containing no theological content but just a responsiveness to the change in people's styles of participation, that means the "said quietly" Eucharistic Prayer). The adoption of a common calendar - I could not cope without St Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, for example - and the inclusion of the new prefaces in the celebration of the Extraordinary Form are "no brainers" to me, but no-one seems to be moving forward on these.

In this light, I found interesting the following snippet from Fr Stephen Langridge at the Southwark Vocations blog, reporting on a meeting for priests in Spain just before World Youth Day:

Another interesting piece of news was about a get-together between priests and seminarians and Mgr Marini, the Papal MC. Answering questions the monsignor said a number of things of note. Among them that the Holy Father isn't planning to impose anything. For Papal Masses the MCs have been given a free hand to draw upon the Church's rich inheritance of treasures in order to counteract the widespread impression that things of liturgical merit or worth have been abolished in the 'modern' liturgy. This is part of the Holy Father's concern to promote the 'hermeneutic of continuity': to show that there is no rupture between the pre-conciliar and post-conciliar Church. Another interesting comment was that in the 'medium term', although he may not live to see it, there will be a new missal for the one Roman Rite - drawing, one presumes, on the best of both current forms of the Rite.

The two observations here do put into a context the assertion of a Benedictine renewal programme for the Liturgy that we read about elsewhere - well, it does not appear as if it exists at all in what one might call a juridical form, though one could see it as a "trend". And I think the idea of a single, new Missal, which at minimum will bring together in one publication the provisions of the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms but might well be an outcome of the mutual enriching of the two forms (still, I would expect, with two forms but both of them having grown from where they are now). The report from Spain, however, even seems to suggest that the two forms would be eventually united to one form, though I can't quite see that that will happen.

In any case, the exercise that is Summorum Pontificum is an exercise that faces two ways. It looks towards those who have gone into schism with the form of the celebration of the Liturgy as key factor in that move into schism, and hopes that the new provision with regard to the Extraordinary Form will help to overcome that schism. The concern for the unity of the Church that is expressed particularly, if I recall correctly, in Pope Benedict's accompanying letter shows this face of Summorum Pontificum. Summorum Pontificum also faces towards those who, though remaining in communion with the Church, have an affiliation to what we now term the Extraordinary Form. The interest in the mutual enrichment of the two forms contained in Summorum Pontificum and the Pope's letter seems to show this second face of Summorum Pontificum.

During my time as a parish Master of Ceromonies, I used to have a phrase I used when something went wrong, particularly if it caused amusement, as these things are inclined to do, and resulted in an embarrassed altar server. I used to talk about "Liturgy with a human face". By this I meant that we did things reverently and with our best efforts to achieve technical correctness - but that we were relaxed (in the best sense) about things that might go wrong. It had a second aspect, too, in that it referred to a liturgy in which the ordinary parishioners were able to engage and, dare I say it, "participate". Believe you me, some of the Mums and Dads spotted everything that was going on in the Sanctuary, and only the then parish priest's dislike of radio microphones meant they missed his "asides" on the mishaps we occasionally had! I am not sure that the photographs of recent events communicate this to me about the celebrations of the Extraordinary Form. I suspect I would not have stayed if I had been present, not out of any question of principle, but because I would have lost interest (sorry, participation) quite quickly. And, yes, I do have the Liturgical formation to cope with it, before anyone suggests otherwise.

So, my punchlines:

Birettas really are old hat - I can hardly see them as being essential to the Extraordinary Form, and expect that it could be celebrated quite happily without them.

Frills and lace - the Liturgy is not tied to one particular artistic expression, not even the Extraordinary Form, so modern styles of vestments seem to me perfectly compatible with the Extraordinary Form, frills and lace not being necessary for its validity ... or have I missed something?

And it should be possible to look comfortable about what you are doing ... If I had been an MC there, I really would not have been able to resist whispering into Bishop McMahon's ear something like "Cheer up, only twenty pages to go..."

Photo credit: Hermeneutic of Continiuty.