When I was in the seminary in the 1970's we were taught that the Mass is communal and that there wasn't any room for the priest's private prayers and piety, the apex of corruption of the Mass being the silent canon that made the Mass the priest's private prayer and took it away from the laity.
So to reverse this horrible corruption that prevented the laity from taking their rightful place during the Liturgy (keep in mind up to Vatican II and slightly afterwards, nearly 90% of Catholics attended Mass each Sunday) the priest's private acts of prayer and piety would become public or eliminated if these occurred through accidents of liturgical history.
So the canon was prayed out loud. It was not eliminated, but the words of consecration were no longer to be seen as the "magic moment" of the Mass but that the entire Eucharistic Prayer consecrated the Eucharist and was most important, so no more genuflections or elevations of the host!
The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, were too priestly and divided the laity from the clergy and so these were truncated.
The priests private prayers on approaching and kissing the altar were eliminated.
The priest reciting to himself the prayer invoking St. Michael and the psalm as the priest incensed the altar at the offertory was eliminated.
The lenghty prayer for washing one's hands reduced to a fanatical economy of words.
There are other such examples.
The Roman Canon was stripped of all the ritual expressions of "blessing God" with the additional signs of the Cross, which of course, ad orientem, no one actually saw but they knew what he was doing. Can we really "bless" God (praise, adore, worship) too much? Do we really have to be minimalistic and that somehow makes it more significant because of its infrequency?
Let's say, you tell you spouse you love them once a year only; let's say on Valentine's Day. Does that making saying "I love you" all the more dramatic and meaningful?
The return of the Tridentine Mass is making many of us who celebrate it realize that the Ordinary Form of the Mass has minimized the Church's ritual expression of prayer and denigrated the private aspects of one's piety whether that be priest of lay person by removing or minimizing these private expressions much to the detriment of ritual, reverence and piety.
Oh, today with all the updates and renewal we've had with the Liturgy, we have less than 25% attending Mass regularly, even though the Mass has been given back to the laity. There's an elephant in the room that someone in charge doesn't see.
Let me make clear the following. I am not advocating the erasing of the post Vatican II Mass. I am advocating a reform of the reform in continuity with the Mass that was supposed to be reformed. The two Mass are meant to celebrate the same saving event, the same sacred mysteries. If that isn't obvious then the reform is not reform but deform.
Let me once again highlight what I would see as the perfect "reform of the reform of the Ordinary Form of the Mass" but this time with the added longer private prayers of the priest for approaching and kissing the altar, for incensing the altar at the offertory and for the washing of hands. I would also say that the vernacular would be the primary language but in order to preserve some Latin that only the quiet prayers of the priest be in latin and the Roman Canon be the only Eucharistic Prayer and in Latin, with all the rubrics of the EF's Roman Canon, but keeping the Mystery of Faith and the Per Ipsum with the Great Amen.
1. Obligatory Introit with no substitutions.
2. After approaching and kissing altar (with the priests accompanying private prayers) and incensing if incense is used, the priest goes to the foot of the altar for the Penitential Act, which is always the official introductory to it, and the Confiteor followed by absolution.
3. The priest goes to his chair for the Kyrie, Gloria and Collect or may remain at the altar with the Collect at the Epistle Side.
4. The Liturgy of the Word as usual for the OF, but with the option of the Gradual (and tract during Lent).
5. The Credo and Universal Prayer at the Chair or the altar
6. The Liturgy of the Eucharist AD Orientem
7. The Roman Canon exclusively in Latin and in quiet voice which is a symbol of the East's iconostasis. The rubrics for the Roman Canon, as in the Extraordinary Form, but keeping the Mysterium Fidei and the Per Ipsum chanted as in the OF with the Great Amen.
8. The Rite of Holy Communion as in the OF except for kneeling and intinction for Holy Communion.
9. The Post Communion, Blessing and Dismissal at the chair.
10. Salve Regina or Regina Caeli always said or sung prior to the recessional
11. The Recessional could be to a hymn, instrumental music or silence. Additional hymns could be sung at the Offeroty (after the official antiphon) and at Holy Communion after the official Communion chant.
15 comments:
This is so painful. How many people would try out for a part in 'Macbeth' then ad lib or abridge the part as an improvement?
I went to a weekend 'Liturgical Working Group' where one of the leaders advised me that our Mass was a communal event and we should have our relationship with God in private. I asked him pointedly and publicly to explain that. The bad news is that it produced an awkward moment, the good news is that I now have my Saturday afternoons free.
I can remember wondering where were the bells? I would actually hear them, then realise they were not there anymore. The Mass was and still could be a total sensory event where even a deaf person could see what prayer was being said by the posture of the priest, and the blind could smell the incense.
rcg
"I can remember wondering where were the bells?"
I've seen a lot, but even the worst Novus Ordi I usually see have triple bells for the elevations, etc.
And at the TLM that I attended Sunday, not only did an altar boy ring bells at all the usual places, but also the church bell in the church tower rang out joyously for the Consecration. People asked how we timed it so exquisitely. (Ans: The MC had in his pocket the remote control for the tower bell.)
And if you look at
www.knoxlatinmass.net/gallery/Pentecost2012/Pentecost2012.htm
you can at least see a Mass at which the church tower bell was heard at the consecration.
Sacrosanctum Concilium says things like, "that sound tradition may be retained..." and "...there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them". But it's as if such traditional phrases in these any many other sentences of the document were ignored in the preparation of the new order of Mass.
I would say the good of the Church 'genuinely and certainly' requires the recovery of the principal elements of the Roman liturgical tradition so that 'sound tradition may be retained' in the Latin Church.
Father,
Again, it is clear that your regular offering of the EF and your recent offering of the OF ad orientem (versus adpsidem) has truly affected you and has provoked your private reassessment of the current norms for the celebration of the OF. I truly believe that this is exactly what the Pope had in mind (as a part of a larger vision for true liturgical reform) when he gave all Catholic priests the option of offering the EF.
It is like preparing the ground before planting. As we know from Scripture and from practical experience, dropping seed on hard, unprepared ground does not bear much fruit. Likewise, a mandate for more extensive reforms along the lines of what you have proposed will be much easier for many Bishops, priests, and laity to accept and understand if they have already been exposed to the EF and have begun to think in the way that you and some of the other regular commenters on this blog (and many other blogs like it) have done.
Given the proposals that you have offered for a "reform of the reform," what do you think about my observations about the position of the priest's thumb and index fingers after the words of Consecration (which I've always continued to believe occurs at the words "This is My Body" and "This is the Chalice of My Blood" hence the ringing of bells at the Elevations and the genuflections)? Given that you see intinction as a very viable option for distribution of Communion (which, as a practical matter, excludes Communion in the hand) wouldn't a renewed emphasis on the careful handling of the Sacred Species (which includes the position of the priest's fingers after Consecration) be consistent with this?
Also, what of my observations about the veiled chalice and head covering for the priest approaching the altar (as in the EF)? I had even thought later about the symbolic parallel between the all-male priesthood, married to the Church, the Bride of Christ, and the priest unveiling the Chalice at the altar as a new husband (traditionally) unveils his new bride at the altar before kissing her. Am I off-base in making such a comparison? Your Valentine's Day illustration makes me think of this even more!
I maintain that rubrics serve two purposes:
1) To guard the dignity of the Rite itself, especially in guarding the physical and spiritual eminence and well-being of the Sacred Species.
2) To make the liturgy itself more expressive, but in a way that is highly (and rightly) regulated for the consistency of the liturgy. The EF is on a regular basis visually, audibly, and nasally(?lol) expressive. The OF is a boring droning of words that seem to all mix together into a stream of nothingness; the Form is not punctuated with ceremonial gesture and so the OF becomes very unexpressive. Not to mention that incense is not required at any OF Mass.
The OF has failed on all levels to be a true reform and continuation of development of the Roman Rite. It quickly needs to be reformed itself. For one, its slob rubrics beg for the deformation of the rites and profanation of the Sacred Species. Secondly, it is ritually banal and unexpressive.
The theology of the liturgy surely shows that Christ is the Bridegroom and the Church is His bride. I'm not sure about the two things you mention in terms of the priest's head covering or the bishop's head covering--I'd have to do some historical study on that as well as on the covering of the chalice. The traditional canopy of corona over the altar, such as at St. Peter's and modified forms of it does go to the marriage bed. Since Vatican II, though, the marriage theology of the Eucharist seems to have been neglected and diminished. Of course today there are political reasons for doing so related to same sex marriage and the image of Christ as a male groom and the Church as a female bride (odd to have to have redundant modifiers for bride and groom)goes against the secular agenda even in the Church to neuter Christ, Church, Bride and Groom, thus opening the door to female priests (although priest is a male term too, priestess the female) and same sex marriage.
Father,
I wasn't suggesting that the priest's head covering has anything to do with the marriage theology of the Mass. I think it has more to do with coming in from the outside world and entering in to the Holy of Holies and the removal of the biretta or cowl at the steps of the altar is the action that illustrates or accentuates this idea at the beginning of the great ritualized prayer that is the Mass. Mitres may or may not have the same significance as they are actual pieces of liturgical vestment whereas the biretta or cowl are the headwear of clerical dress or religious habit (hence the association with coming in from the outside, where they were normally worn). Of course, all vestments, historically speaking, started out as actual street dress which later was elevated to the dignity of liturgical vestment. The cope, as a piece of outer clothing, is a prime example.
While the carrying of the covered chalice which is then unveiled at the altar may have the same significance as the removal of the priest's head covering (coming from the outside before "entering in" to the Mass). It may, however, also be (as I earlier suggested) an action emphasizing the marriage theology of the Mass.
Still, you haven't commented on the other action of the joining of the fingers from the Consecration to the Ablution!
Joe, there may be something wrong with Blogspot as the emails I receive since today have a new format to publish comments and when I try to do yours, it says there are no comments for moderation and yet, yours is in my email box: This is what you wrote:
Joseph Johnson has left a new comment on your post "BUT LITURGY IS NOT CEREMONIAL. IT IS PRAYER. AND S...":
Father,
I wasn't suggesting that the priest's head covering has anything to do with the marriage theology of the Mass. I think it has more to do with coming in from the outside world and entering in to the Holy of Holies and the removal of the biretta or cowl at the steps of the altar is the action that illustrates or accentuates this idea at the beginning of the great ritualized prayer that is the Mass. Mitres may or may not have the same significance as they are actual pieces of liturgical vestment whereas the biretta or cowl are the headwear of clerical dress or religious habit (hence the association with coming in from the outside, where they were normally worn). Of course, all vestments, historically speaking, started out as actual street dress which later was elevated to the dignity of liturgical vestment. The cope, as a piece of outer clothing, is a prime example.
While the carrying of the covered chalice which is then unveiled at the altar may have the same significance as the removal of the priest's head covering (coming from the outside before "entering in" to the Mass). It may, however, also be (as I earlier suggested) an action emphasizing the marriage theology of the Mass.
Still, you haven't commented on the other action of the joining of the fingers from the Consecration to the Ablution!
As far as holding one's fingers from the consecration to the ablution, it certainly tells the priest what the Church believes that every particle of the Most Holy Eucharist is completely the Risen Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity and that if a person simply received a minute particle of the Host that person still receives Holy Communion completely, although certainly the "sign" value is diminished but not the transubstantiation spiritual reality.
To be honest, I get cramps in my hands at the juncture of the index finger and thumb. I think that in the past and with priests with scupulosity issues (obsessive compulsive and truly so)this concern for minute particles would drive them to spiritual despair. Today, though, since these rubric of how to hold one's thumb and index finger after consecrating the host and even the concern for host particles on the corporal, has been tossed out, I fear that it has led unscupulous priests and laity to become very casual about particles and rather apathetic about the real presence of Christ even in the smallest particle.
I think I'd prefer liturgical scrupulosity over the unscrupulous liturgics we've had for almost 45 years. The apathy toward the real presence of Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar even in its tiniest form is truly a sign of a loss of awe, respect and fear and wonder for Christ and His awesome real presence. However, the rubric of how to hold index finger and thumb makes absolutely no sense if Holy Communion is to be distributed by the laity and that the laity are able to receive Holy Communion in the hand. Most who receive in the hand (not all) could care less about any residual particles on their hand or thumb and index finger and most EM's could care less also. The law of prayer is the law of belief.
The same thing is true of the manner in which a priest distribute Holy Communion in the EF Mass, he does so by making the "sign of the cross" as in Benediction with the host prior to giving our Lord to the Communicant. This has been tossed out in the OF as well. Why? Because liturgists who designed the OF knew that Lay people would be allowed to be EM's and lay people can't give a blessing let alone offer Benediction, so the "sign of the Cross" at with the Communion Host was eliminated.
Father,
The problem with how you receive my comments may be with how I have been submitting them--they are not done under a member password. They are done as an anonymous commenter would do, only I type in my name. I'll try to explore how to use my blogger password (which I have long forgotten--maybe my 14 year old daughter, Sara Ann, can help!).
Anyway, in your answer, (which I very much appreciate and which is attached to my last comment) you have essentially explained the reason(s) that so many, including myself, have had a problem with Communion in the hand, at least as it is presently done. This is another reason why many prefer the rubrics of the EF. The law of prayer is indeed the law of belief.
Joe, how did you send the one above for I got it and could moderate it, but the one you sent at 6:05 I could not moderate, so I suspect the glitch is with Blogspot and I'm not sure why they've changed the manner in which I post from emails--they've made it more difficult.
Father,
The last comment was sent from my office computer, which is on a high-speed DSL hookup--otherwise, it was sent as usual.
Father,
When I send from my office computer, I have to submit it twice because the first submission is not being recognized after I send it. I also meant to tell you--most of my comments are done from my home computer (18 miles out from town in a rural area) from a satellite hookup.
Joe, since Blogspot changed the manner in which I post comments from emails that I get, I think it may just have been a glitch with the one you sent at around 6 AM as this all happened overnight. I have comments from before midnight that are the old way for me to post and better I might add and then after midnight the new way. So we'll see.
I always have to enter the "secret code" words twice before the blog will take my post.
Post a Comment