I urge interested readers to check out a “position paper” by the chairman of the Latin Mass Society in England, Mr. Joseph Shaw. He talks in brief here about his paper, which was posted in full by our friends over at Rorate.
Those of you who are not familiar with the issue of Prefaces in the Roman Rite, and whether or not newer Prefaces should be incorporated into the Extraordinary Form will benefit from this informative piece.
Here is how Mr. Shaw wraps up his description of his “position paper”.
The Position Paper ends with a plea for a period of liturgical stability. Traditionalists don’t deny the reality of organic development in the liturgy: the 1962 Missal is the result of such development. Indeed it is the Bugnini-like denial of the validity of development for the last nine centuries which is the real enemy of organic development. But this moment in the history of the liturgy is not ripe for the introduction of new Prefaces. We have just come through an exceptional period of liturgical turmoil. The Extraordinary Form is spreading rapidly among priests and laity, who need time to absorb it as it is. In the words of Sacrosanctum Concilium, does ‘the good of the Church genuinely and certainly require’ new Prefaces in the EF? It seems to us that it does not.
We should know our liturgical worship in both forms. So, even if you don’t regularly attend the Extraordinary Form, you should give this paper some time.
As an adjunct to what might happen in the combox at Rorate here is a WDTPRS poll.
While I understand Mr Shaw’s viewpoint, I believe if, following the Council, the liturgy was renewed and reformed as it required, instead of scrapping it and starting again by making a new one, new prefaces would have appeared.
The prefaces from 1964 and the so-called Gallican prefaces are actually very beautiful. Advent, etc.
But, the point of the position is that even beautiful additions need to wait. A liturgical time-out is necessary to get the traditional Latin Mass into every parish (isn’t that what Pope Benedict XVI called for, per Cardinal Hoyos?) before any missal-tinkering is on the table.
Already 1962 handmissals printed around the time of Summorum Pontificum are outdated, as the new-new-new Good Friday prayers for the conversion of Jews replaced what was in them.
This isn’t about content. The prefaces at hand are lovely, in my opinion. This is about timing. Time out.
In the ’62 missal there are prefaces for certain places. Simply extending them for universal use would be the best solution. Also returning to the pre-1955 rules (e.g. the Christmas preface for Corpus Christi, the Apostles preface for Holy Popes).
You will recall, Father Z, that prior to the new English translation, I occasionally suggested a WDTPRS treatment of the OF prefaces, which in my opinion suffered even more from the 1973 ICEL job than the collects and orations. Some (but not all) of them are– in beauty of original Latin, doctrine, and substance –fully worthy of inclusion in the EF (as may well happen eventually). I love these–in the OF, especially in Latin.
The EF caution and question (as wolfeken indicates) is whether we are far enough past the slippery slope that any tinkering now with the 1962 missal–which already exhibits plenty of fingerprints left by some of the same folks who fabricated the Novus Ordo–will either start the slide again, or arouse so many fears that it will, as to be unacceptable to traditionally minded Catholics.
[I do recall your suggestion! Alas, I never got to it in the series.]
I voted “indifferent,” but permit me to elaborate:
I certainly do not think that new prefaces should be introduced piecemeal, or as a stand-alone reform. I do think that the 1962 MR should be updated to include new saints, or as part of a Church-wide unification of the two Roman Rite calendars. Any new prefaces should be added as part of that effort only. That effort should not be undertaken until things have . . . settled down a bit.
I think that the priest should be given more prefaces to work from in the EF, but only after careful study and selection of prefaces written for the OF. Those chosen would have to be intended for the Canon, and be suitable for a particular day or votive Mass etc on the calender of 1962.
There should be choice for “yes, as options.” I know it is fashionable to decry options that have proliferated in the OF liturgy, but options are one way to introduce relatively painlessly “mutual attraction” between the two forms of the Roman rite. Hopefully they would be used mainly to introduce elements of the EF back into the OF as options, e.g., prayers at the foot of the altar, offertory prayers, etc.
I wonder what the chances are of new prefaces (and other bits and pieces as they appear) being added to both the OF and the EF. That might do a lot of good and help people struggling with one or the other form of the rite to better appreciate it.
just a thought…
I say no changes. If there are to be any changes in the extraordinary form at all it should be the restoration of the Pre-’55 holy week liturgy and/or the formal reinsertion of the second confiteor. I’d say no other adaptation would be welcome at this time.
The Extraordinary Form gives us some much needed stability in our already chaotic time both within and outside the Church.
I voted “indifferent,” but what I really mean is, I am willing to defer to the expertise and strong views of others.
If there were to be any changes in the older form, I would be more interested in questions regarding the calendar and the lectionary. And if those can’t be tackled now, then perhaps leave it all alone for now.
Meanwhile, I have any number of changes I’d like to see in the rubrics for the ordinary form–but again, is now the time? In English-speaking countries, the Missals are just getting broken in.
I’m most unqualified to judge whether the time is ripe for anything. Not as a point of pride, but as a point of mere capacity, the only thing I feel I can give even two cents about (and of course nothing more) is how it should be in the end.
In the end, there should be taken over into the EF:
1. the Preface of Advent I (that is the one which mentions the Lord’s second coming), possibly (if possible without breaking the cohesion of the prayer) made a bit longer by other Advent motives,
2. the Preface for Sundays in Ordinary Time III, as preface for the post-Epiphany Sundays,
3. the Preface for Lent I (cutting the words “of Penance” after “in this time”), as preface for the three Septuagesima Sundays,
4. the Preface of the Chrism Mass, also to be used (isn’t it now? I’m not sure) in the Ordinations of priests,
5. the Preface of the Eucharist,
6./7. one Preface each for Martyrs and Other Saints.
I’m not sure whether as an alternative to the post-Trinity Sundays, the OF
8. Preface for the Sundays of Ordinary Time VI
should be made possible; it would beautifully fit, but then the idea of having compulsorily the Trinity Preface for all these Sundays has a charm of its own.
As to my No.6/7, this should be impossible during Advent, Lent, Christmas or Eastertide save in feasts of first class; whether this should be for any mass of saints in post-Epiphany and post-Pentecost and perhaps also Septuagesima or only beginning with a specific rank and if so which, or if differently for martyrs and saints, there would be many possibilities with a bundle of arguments.
Well then, what would be the necessary ‘waiting period’? A year? twenty? A century? If find the arguments purely based on stability as ‘not rocking the boat’ or reluctance to have to print new missals quite unconvincing. If competent authority believes it’s a change for the better, and feels it’s important enough to do so now, that would be quite enough for me.
Still, I voted ‘no’.
The reason for this would be that a) it isn’t clear if it is a change for the better (mindful of the danger of ‘overpersonalisation’ of the Mass), b) it’s important enough to make any change whatsoever.
In that sense the FIUV document is decidely unhelpful. There’s a good number of new saints and their feasts (and perhaps some new feasts independent of this?) and one should make an overview of those where the current EF preface is a mismatch with the new feast. In those cases it would be a matter of necessity to have new prefaces sooner or later. But as a layman who has little or no clue about all the minor feasts, or order and priorities of feasts, I cannot judge if there would be a need of 200, 20 or zero new prefaces under such a criterion. And if I’m not mistaken the matter of how to adjust the EF calendar for the new saints is as of yet unresolved as well, so even if we had answer, it may be an uncertain one.
But since there appear to be over 1600 possible prefaces in the OF, I think it’s safe to say that we don’t need to bring them all over.
As a little explanation on one point.
I figure that in Advent, post-Epiphany and Septuagesima (other than, of course, in post-Pentecost), the choosing of the Trinity Preface never was for a specific reason other than that it is (undoubtedly) more festive and longer that the Ordinary Preface. So was the use of the Epiphany Preface for the Eucharist; this latter does have the dogmatic truth behind it, but is, in my very humble opinion, a bit obvious in its manner of hinting.
The following 96-page EF missalette (Ignatius Press 2008) contains an appendix with 13 of the OF prefaces:
The Order of Mass: The Missal of Blessed John XXIII
“This booklet, ideal for parish use, is not only a guide for those acquainting themselves with the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite (popularly known as the Tridentine Rite), but also a resource for those already familiar with this rich liturgy.”
Select Prefaces from the 1970 Roman Missal
“Amongst the various decisions of the Ecclesia Dei Commission is a permission to included Prefaces from the 1970 Missale Romanum in the celebration of the 1962 Missale Romanum.”
Thus it asserts that this “permission” for 1970 prefaces in the 1962 Mass is already in effect. The 1970 prefaces included here are those for the Baptism of the Lord, Annunciation, Pentecost, Transfiguration, Assumption, Immaculate Conception, the Apostles Peter and Paul, Saint John the Baptist, the Angels, Pastors, Martyrs, Religious and Holy Virgins, Matrimony.
My own opinion fluctuates between “yes”, “no”, and “indifferent”. (My natural inclination is toward “yes”, but the view argued in the position paper does seem to have merit as well. It is, I think, at least worthy of very serious consideration.)
So in the end, I opt for the last option: humility. I do not know what the consequences would be. I _cannot_ know what the consequences would be, until and unless it’s tried. I think that there may be, in many EF devotees, an inappropriate attachment to stasis, as opposed to an entirely proper desire for reverence. But even if this is the case, it is hard to be certain as to the best solution. They are, after all, our brothers in Christ. And moreover, many of them have been carrying torches for Truth for decades now, while the rest of us struggled in vain. I don’t wish to “reward” those sacrifices by giving unnecessary offense. You know, “thanks for holding God’s Church together by your fingernails for 30-odd years with practically no support at all from most of those officially charged with its care, but the rest of us are back now, and we’re pretty sure we know what’s best for you”.
Even if, in the fullness of time, it turns out that we actually _do_ know what’s best, it seems that humility is probably the best course at this point in history.
I don’t know enough to have an opinion but the thought of resting in a tranquil pool of stability, even just momentarily, sounds very appealing at present.
I never use the optional prefaces in the EF. My theory as to why there are so few prefaces is that having few makes it easier for priests to sing them.
As we are finding out in the Novus Ordo, it is not so easy to really master the singing of the many prefaces throughout the year, many priests just give up and recite it. I suspect that in the development of the Liturgy, this came to be understood, so that simple priests could be able to sing the Mass.
As a lay person…I had to vote “NO”. Continuous change/tinkering/tweaking/etc only confuses the matter. It’s harkening back to the late 60s/early 70s where there was constant fluidity that served NO useful purpose; change for change’s sake is not necessarily the best.
The body of the Church (its members…) need, I think, a little time to absorb the institution of Benedict’s “Plan”. Starting with his homilies at Blessed John Paul II’s rites…he’s laid out where he wants to go. It’s no longer bad to talk about the discontinuity between tradition and practice, and he’s put in motion the vehicle to put things back on track.
I’m thinking now’s not the time to keep tinkering. Much as when painting a car, you bring the underlying structure up to proper nick, apply primer and let it be. Rectify any issues, prime again…rectify and apply the final coats…but, you don’t go sticking your fingers on the hood to see if it’s dry before putting the fine finish on it. You let it bake out. You let it cure. You let it react as it should. Things take time. And the best results can not be rushed.
Same here. Let the new translation sink in fully, let the good new chant and hymns gain some traction. Let the EF become more widely available (that there is a ministry in the Trenton NJ diocese specifically aimed at fostering the EF now would have been unthinkable only a couple years ago…). Things will happen organically and with due prudential activity. Impatience is the enemy…and comes from the enemy.
But since there appear to be over 1600 possible prefaces in the OF, I think it’s safe to say that we don’t need to bring them all over.
No, there were only 82 prefaces in the original 1970 OF missal, and the handful added since then surely leaves the total at less than a hundred OF prefaces.
Perhaps you are thinking of the FIUV position paper statement that “The definitive modern collection of Latin prefaces, the Corpus Praefationum, has 1674 in total.”
This collection has prefaces published up to 1969, but the vast majority of them are pre-1962 prefaces, indeed, almost all of these dating back to pre-Tridentine times when virtually every day of the year had its own proper preface.
Got that mixed up then, thanks for the correction.
No. Keep the older prefaces.
Expand the usage of the old sequences.
Use the older liturgical calender.
I voted No only because I believe the OF should be reformed before the EF is tampered with.
I am of the opinion, like many commenters, of “not now.” Mr. Shaw makes some fine points, and I would add that a liturgical emphasis ought to be made on clarity of teaching. The many prefaces are fine and worthy, but given the widespread disbelief in our central beliefs about who God is, wouldn’t a continued focus on the Blessed Trinity on most Sundays (outside of Advent, Christmas, Lent, and Easter times) be appropriate?
One thing that stuck me from Pope Benedict’s books Jesus of Nazareth,was his argument that much of the current error facing the Church comes from Christological problems, with “Who is Jesus?” being the central question. Aren’t the Common Preface and the Preface of the Blessed Trinity better ways to emphasize the Church’s answer to that question than a plethora of (admittedly orthodox and rich) prefaces?
I voted No! I agree with Disco and a few others. This is not the time to be adding to/subtracting from the 1962 Missal. One of the fears a number of parishioners have, who only attend the Latin Mass, is that the Vatican is headed toward some sort of “hybrid” mass in latin. I seriously doubt this is on the horizon given where Pope Benedict and Bishop Fellay are in their negotiations. I do not understand the logic that says we must always be upgrading, changing and modernizing the mass. Leave the EF alone. It has been gone too long from almost all diocese. People do not like change nearly as much as they are often told they do by the church.
chcrix: I’d be happy if my parish just regularly said the Creed on Sundays (rather than going directly to the Prayer of the Faithful) and EVER recited the sequences on those feasts where they were called for, let alone the EF liturgical calendar or other called-for celebrations.
Just sayin’, you know?
Shouldn’t priority go to getting the Church back on one calendar? (My vote, of course, would be to resume the old calendar, and to update for new feasts and saints.)
Should we mix crystalline water with mud? Wouldn’t we get just… more mud?
Curiously enough, not one of these reformers ever consider going back to the old, liturgically richer, pre-Bugnini Holy Week. Why is it so? Because these people are blatant enemies of the Church who are witnessing their so carefully crafted liturgy get gradually more rejected and are trying what they can in order to sabotage the older, truer form Catholics are ever more resorting to lately.
Seriously, why do people even consider that after taking this into account? It’s really a no-brainer.
[Wel’ll take that as a “no” vote, then.]
As an exclusive attendee of the EF, I have to concur with most. Adding prefaces to the EF Missal is tinkeritis, pure and simple. It’s urged, I feel, just to claim the right to tinker. But if the goal is to utterly sweep the dust from the ’62 and restore it without question to the “life of the Church,” then that’s another matter, and disco has the right idea. Restore the pre-’55 Holy Week rites. Restore the 2nd Confiteor (I think it’s used more often than not anyway), and perhaps, just perhaps, insert fresh collects for saints canonized over the past fifty years. Then give it an imprimatur, slap “Roman Missal 2014” on it, and call it a day.
I voted NO.
I support Mr. Shaw’s, wolfeken’s, Henry Edwards’ and Bryan Boyle’s reasoning. Now is NOT the right time.
I voted ‘no’ but perhaps should have voted indifferent. I become more aware of the significance of the fact that the Eucharistic Prayer is primarily addressed to God. If He needed different preferences, I would be in favor of them.
I must admit that, having been involved in or read many debates regarding the offering of the Mass, I approach this question with no small degree of trepidation.
I voted that I don’t have enough knowledge of the subject matter. I don’t. If I may be so bold, I become VERY nervous when lay faithful begin declaring what we ought to do or not. I saw..more than enough of that throughout my teens and 20’s. I still see it now and then. All too often, such efforts demonstrate..a singular lack of knowledge regarding what we we’re intended to be be praying about or doing at a particular time of the Mass.
On the other hand, I’m pretty concerned about two views the author seems to take:
1. We can’t do anything at all that the Roman Rite hasn’t ever done before.
2. We can’t have any more prefaces than a particular number because..well, just because.
These concerns DO have merit to a degree, I’ll grant that.
In the case of the number of prefaces, I recall being shocked to learn in 2004 that the Mass had about 13 approved prayers, though that may have more accurately referred to the Eucharistic Prayers, not the Prefaces. Point was though, I’d actually only ever seen FOUR of that number. Only one or two had ever actually been used with any routine. I recall thinking that we might be better served with only one, if only so we didn’t wind up scrambling through 25 pages or more in a missalette, trying to catch up again. On the other hand, such problems CAN be remedied without much difficulty if the priest will simply declare which one he intends to use.
More importantly, I’m more than a little uneasy with declaring that we can’t do anything at all that we’ve never seen before. In particular, the author seems to declare that, if we haven’t done it in 900 years, we can’t do it ever. For me, this raises a ticklish question: Why?
So far as I’m aware, none of the prefaces in either form can be proven to originate with the apostles or with Christ. We can’t competently say that ANY of the Preface prayers we have..definitely have credible use throughout the whole of the Church’s history. Somebody had to write each one SOMETIME.
I’m forced to ask why we willingly admit a prayer that someone wrote around 600 AD, for example, but we can’t possibly even consider another prayer that someone wrote around 1969. I don’t see any particular argument there, outside of the possibility that the first prayer happens to be about 1,400 years old, the second, about 42. I have never heard anything to declare beyond a reasonable doubt that an average cleric around 600 necessarily demonstrated a greater degree of holy virtue than does the average cleric today.
Certainly we can make an argument in favor of a particular style being more appropriate to the Mass than another, but I’m forced to ask then if we’re truly THAT worried about style points. If the prayer expresses a competent sentiment or plea to God, I don’t see how we can dismiss it on grounds of “it doesn’t sound the same”. Well, Latin and English don’t sound even remotely similar either, but we still use the vernacular in the Mass of the Ordinary Form. ..And many of us actually bother to understand what’s being said.
Ultimately, I will admit that the older form’s prefaces may be more thorough, more capable of expressing our desperate need for God. For what I’ve read of the matter, Archbishop(?) Bugnini and friends appear to have..eased up in this area.
Thus why we have Fr Z’s blog about “What Does the Prayer REALLY Say?”.
On the whole though, I trust the Holy Father and the Curia to make the appropriate judgements regarding the prudence of including the prayers or not.
Please, just give me a worthwhile missal and help me learn Latin so I can follow along.
As a footnote to the above, I might raise this thought:
Vatican II requested the organic development of the Mass.
We all know that the Novus Ordo seems rather a desperate departure from that concept, so Pope Benedict has authorized any priest to offer the Extraordinary Form. Beings that we don’t have any other way TO DO this, we’ve been using the 1962 Missal.
I think this raises an interesting question: Under what circumstances will we allow for the traditional Mass to be..adjusted..in any fashion?
Will we insist that the traditional Mass must be available at every parish and at least vaguely understood in the pews before the 1962 Missal can be updated even a little?
Or will we be satisfied with a change once we can find at least one parish in every city, county, or state that does so?
Do we need to see something in between?
I think we need to address THAT question as much as any other.
Oh, heck no. Especially if people are floating this just to frighten off the SSPX.
If they wanted to explicitly give EF prefaces for new saints, and the EF prefaces were the same as the OF prefaces, that would be okay. But even that seems a bit unnecessary.
I voted NO, as this seems to be a rush into more change without due thought, as so much is happening at this time. Why the haste? I feel in my gut that this is an attempt to derail the Summorum Pontificum, by making more changes to the NO before mutual enrichment has even gotten to the toddler stage of development.
I am surprised, as the Vatican usually takes a very long time in doing something. What about the commentaries for priests on the homilies of the NO three year readings, based on the Catechism of the Council of Trent, that was supposed to be published last September? Nary a word on that, and now, this…..
OK I agree with Fr Fox; while adding some prefaces might be nice (if done in the manner of my first comment) there are bigger fish to fry.
I think we’ve gone from one extreme to the other. While admittedly, there aren’t many prefaces in the extra-ordinary form, we have too many in the ordinary form. I think to the point that most of them are watered down at least to some extent.
While I don’t think the idea of adding new prefaces is a bad thing in general, as has already been said; now is not the time for it.
No. Shocked and horrified, no.
I agree with Disco, others, re: returning to the in tampered with Tridentine Rite. To modify it, by updating it with anything new would be to change it essentially. It is one thing to go back to former traditions and prayers, imo, but entirely another to add new innovations. Isnt that what got us in this mess? It’s like the Luminous mysteries- there is nothing wrong with them as prayer and meditation- but don’t tinker with the Rosary. Again, IMO. Luminous chaplet. New prefaces in the new Mass. If they start adding things … Where will it end? This question felt like someone wanting to patch a family heirloom quilt with new fabric. Yikes.
Given that the EF is invariably in Latin, the relatively small number of prefaces allows us to become familiar with them. Even if your Latin is fairly good, it is not easy to understand a sung Preface unless you have the words in front of you, and most people would need a parallel translation anyway. In the Latin OF, by the time I have worked out which option the celebrant is using, and flicked to the correct page, it is too late.
Given that the rosary basically is prayer and meditation, and, as you say, there’s nothing wrong with the Luminous mysteries – what’s the bad thing about the Luminous mysteries? (leaving aside that I don’t know where precisely the name luminous comes from.)
There are four additional prefaces added to the Benzinger reprint of the 1962 Missal, that are from earlier Sacramentaries, and were added in 1964. That would seem to be sufficient for now. There are separate prefaces for Lent and Easter, I figure, why not for Advent and Christmas?
As to stability, I could go one way or the other, really. “Tradition,” according to a proper understanding, rarely stays exactly the same from one generation to the next. Ask any student of folklore and they can prove it. That such is an inherent characteristic of tradition makes me wonder, not so much whether “stability” is necessary, but whether it would defy the nature of tradition itself.
I intend no disrespect to Bl John Paul II.
Once upon a time … Our Priests prayed all 150 Psalms everyday ( now they have the Breviary). Some people affectionately called “the people” also wanting to be untied to the daily prayer of the Church also prayed the psalms. But to do this in family life… Etc … Quite the challenge. So the practice developed to pray 150 Our Fathers, then it became Hail Mary’s. So that when Our Lady appeared to St Dominic … There were 150 Hail Marys uniting the prayer of the rosary to the prayer of the psalms. Later, the mysteries were added. So the point is , by adding the luminous mysteries the symbolic connection to the prayer of the psalms is lost because you have 200 Hail Mary’s if you prayed the whole rosary. It may seem insignificant to some and I don’t begrudge anyone the luminous. But for me, I’ve learned just how much was lost when we began to tinker with organic traditions. The rosary grew up as a people’s devotion. I like it the old way. For “Rosary proper”.
At the prodding of a diocesan priest friend, I have recently purchased a copy of the revised NOM Missal [ex CTS]. I find the same unwieldy, impractical and far from an aid to spirituality. The proliferation of Prefaces and Eucharistic Prayers is mind-numbing.
If it is an intention to remake the TLM Missal in the likeness of the NOM Missal it should be avoided like the plague.
In the UK we have the nonsense of a swathe of the CofE using the Traditional Calendar and we use the revised Calendar. I believe it was revised with mal-intent, in order to render, at a stroke, the TLM Missals redundant.
I recall, at a noon mid-week Mass, the parish priest emeritus of some age and poor health, recalling that the particular day was that of a particular saint. He opined the question: “who would know who that saint was now, or, that he even existed”. That, I feel, says it all. Who but a cretin could conjure up the term “Ordinary Time” to express a period of supposed spirituality?
hmmm I thought that OF prefaces could be included pursuant to advice from PCED of quite some years ago.
When my wife and I got married in the EF we requested and the celebrating priest agreed to use one of the OF prefaces for the nuptial Mass. We wanted it precisely because it bore witness to the place of children in marriage. We did however have to get Father to do his own translation for the booklet as the ICEL translation bore very little resemblence to the Latin. Even I with my one year of Latin could tell that …
However, I can see the prudence of the argument of keeping things separate for now.
The “luminous mysteries” were never required, despite what we are led to believe. I can explain, or at least I did once: http://tinyurl.com/62r56tc
Your questions all seem pertinent. The only answer I might suggest is that a prayer written in 600 has survived the sifting and winnowing of 1400 years of history if it is still before us now. Whereas, a prayer written 40 years ago has not. Perhaps most of the prayers written in 600 have disappeared along the way, just as most of the ICEL English prayers of 40 years ago are now being dumped into the dustbin of history.
YES! For Alternative Options to Reach TLM First-Timers.
I voted “indifferent” because I do not think I am qualified to say “yes” or “no”; however, I have given it some thought and must ask “why is it fashionable to talk of adding new stuff to the EF but intolerable to talk of adding things from the EF to the NO?”
Always there is this demand that what is working and lovely in the EF be added to from the NO. Perhaps it will eventually be acceptable to add those options but as it stands now, the only time adaptations or additions are ever spoken of is when the EF is to be altered to make it more like the NO.
I would like to see some of the beauty of the EF adopted by the NO rather than see any of the wording of the NO adopted by the EF but that is not on the table for discussion.
It would be nice to see the EF add the new Saints after all, they are as validly Sainted as the older Saints. :) This would update the EF without losing the beauty and richness of the responses already in the EF.
But add ANY of the responses found in the NO to the EF? WHY? I cannot see any reason to make such a change.