As I have written in the past, I love the Ordinary Form of the Mass when celebrated properly. However, I recognize the reason for it not being celebrated properly is because the General Instruction as well as the rubrics for the Ordinary Form Mass are weak, ambiguous and allow for great diversity from priest to priest based upon his interpretation of these rules and is own pious practices some of which are dubious.
Let's just take a few examples.
1. How wide does the priest hold his arms for the "Orans" position? The EF was very sober and specific about this, but not so in the OF's rubrics. A priest can do almost anything, from looking like he is being "held up" which as a legitimate liturgical reason, to making his arms appear to be the horizontal beam of the cross with his body the vertical beam. Or something in between the various extremes. But it really depends on the priest and his likes and dislikes, no?
2. To cover the chalice with a pall, veil and burse for the corporal cloth. Heck, let's just do what feels good there.
3. The use of the pall during Mass to cover the chalice; heck have it available if a fly, wasp or honey bee is flying about or a cloud of dust comes rolling in from the desert.
4. The rubrics tell the priest to "show" the consecrated Host and then the chalice of Precious Blood after their consecration. But how high? How low? How long? Your guess and the practice you see is as good as the rest.
5. How about at the doxology, how high, low or medium should the chalice and host be "raised" above the altar and is it to show to the people or to acknowledge the sacrifice offering of Christ to the Father which the Father is pleased to accept?
6. What about the personal piety of the priest? Can he say in an audible way, "My Lord and My God.." at the consecrations? Of course if he did it ad orientem who would know. He could have the most pious, saccharine look on his face and no one would know the difference.
The Ordinary Form of the Mass falls victim to the subjective interpretation of the GIRM and rubics of the Mass by the priest and that has caused all the problems in the world with the OF Mass and the battle cry from so many for the reform of the reform of the Ordinary Form of the Mass.
22 comments:
The exaggerated arm gestures are an affectation which has its origins in versus populum and the vernacular, along with eyeballing the congregation and saying "the LORD ... be with ... YOU!" Yuk! Altar breads the size of frisbees are equally vulgar.
The last picture is rubrically quite correct. In the Dominican and Carmelite Rites (and in other pre-Tridentine uses including that of Sarum)the celebrant briefly extends his arms in the cruciform position at the 'Unde et memores'.
The NO rubrics have 'hands extended' and 'hands joined'. No mention of arms. BTW, in the UK we never hold hands during the Pater Noster - it's equivalent to starting up a conversation with the person sitting opposite you on the tube - but I've noticed people adopting the Moslem palms-up gesture. I can only assume that someone saw Moslems praying on TV and thought "that looks cool, I think I'll try that" and started a fashion.
Wise observations, Father. Several years ago Msgr (now Bishop) Peter Elliott wrote Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite in which he offered his own interpretation of the rubrics and directives in the Missal. He clearly states that his interpretation is just that, one person's interpretation, and yet he suggests that priests use his text as a supplement to the Missal in the absence of anything definitive. While I might quibble with a few of +Elliot's opinions, he offers structure and order where there is presently only the ambiguity that you describe in your post.
I wish the Roman Missal would be more directive in regard to the Ordinary Form, and that the so-called liturgical police would be given full power to arrest and imprison! Perhaps the future will bring a reform in the rubrics that will spell out in greater detail the comportment of the priest. Until then, we do have the +Elliott manual around which to rally.
Your thoughts on +Elliott's work?
Father, did the EF have more rules as to what type of music be played at mass? In the OF, we have all sorts of broadway-pop-folk styles of music, none of which sound sacred, but more like adult contemporary radio, even if the lyrics are somewhat religious. My own parish is now introducing a new setting composed by our music director. He says it is a test for the archdiocese who may then "force" other parishes into using it. It is called "mass of victory", and I swear to you, it sounds just like the theme song from "Cheers". (So any readers out there, beware should one day soon, your musical director announces the "mass of victory" will be used).
With music based on TV theme songs, is it any wonder the NO, even with the new English translation, gets boring at best, annoying at worst?
Why does it matter how wide the priest holds his arms?
In 27 years of celebrating mass I have never had a fly, wasp, honey bee, or dust cloud approach the chalice.
Why does it matter how high or for how long the host/chalice is elevated?
No priest ought to say "My Lord and my God" at the consecrations.
Why doee it matter how high the host/chalice is elevated at the doxology?
Number 42 of the GIRM seems aware of this situation, and so says, "...attention should be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice". The way I see it, that means that whenever there is doubt, we should adopt the traditional Roman practice rather than trying to come up with our own, individual solutions.
Fr. McD;
You say, "The Ordinary Form of the Mass falls victim to the subjective interpretation of the GIRM and rubics of the Mass by the priest and that has caused all the problems in the world with the OF Mass and the battle cry from so many for the reform of the reform of the Ordinary Form of the Mass."
Not entirely so. It is a big problem and has caused no end of heartache for those who just want to have the Mass celebrated properly.
I look at it as being multifaceted as I said before. I think there is a theological problem which must first be overcome. Then I think there is a legal problem which must be overcome. Then I think there is a catechetical problem which must be overcome. Then I think there is a linguistic problem which must be overcome. Then I think there is a participatory problem which must be overcome. Once these things are addressed practically, then we can start addressing a "reform of the reform."
But, because any meaningful change must be implemented over time, I strongly support the notion that the TLM should become the Ordinary Form, so that there can be organic growth seen and felt. And the Novus Ordo should become the Extraordinary Form because it lacks the certainty of the TLM.
While your points are all valid as to the suggestive underpinnings of the Novus Ordo, I think that the rubrics and the GIRM should be brought under force of law, as the rubrics of the TLM are. Again, the understanding of liturgical law has been lost. And that is key.
The Low Mass in the EF allows for four hymns to be sung, beginning, offertory, communion, end but none of the parts of the Mass, which is actually the music or chants of the Mass. So technically, you could have just about anything and any style in these hymns. In pre-Vatican II times these were devotional hymns associated with Mary, novenas and Benediction. So with the advent of other genres technically at a low Latin EF Mass today, 4 of just about any type of religious hymn in any style could be chosen.
As for the High or Sung Mass, technically it should be Gregorian Chant for the Introit, Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus and Angus Dei. as well as offertory and communion antiphons. But orchestral settings were allowed but viewed as an exception or even as a liturgical abuse. Motets of various kinds could be filler music at the Offertory and Communion.
@ Pater Ignotus;
It matters because the uniform nature of the actions of a priest be them large or small speak DIRECTLY to the universality of the Mass for all. So, if priests are consistent in their posture, it is one less thing for the faithful to be distracted by. And, the individuality of the priest is not on showcase, anyhow.
I find it odd that you've never had a fly or other insect or arachnid in your chalice. I can tell you that in the first 3 weeks of assisting as an MC, I had 2 flies and a spider near the chalice. Praise God for a pall.
I agree that no priest should say, or even think, my Lord and my God. Because at that moment, he is an alter christus. He is acting in the person of Christ. At that moment he should be fully engrossed in calling God down from Heaven.
You seem to be hung up on why things matter. They matter because to be individualistic as celebrant, is to call focus away from the Sacred action and upon your person. That is not the point. It matters because the Church has presumably a set of rules (rubrics) that a priest should adhere to. The Mass is not a place for individual taste. It is a place for uniformity and promotion of the Church universal. Not, as often is the case, Father's own foibles and wants.
Strictly speaking, if the 1962 books are being used, the instructions in De Musica Sacra 1958 apply. This indeed allows vernacular hymns at Low Mass but does not allow any of the Latin Ordinary to be sung, which strikes me as odd. I know a priest who celebrates an EF Low Mass on Sunday mornings where Gloria VIII and Credo III are sung and I don't find the practice objectionable in the least.
At High/Sung Mass you can get away with singing a vernacular hymn as a recessional, since the latter does not exist in the Roman Rite, the Mass being over at this point. Introit, Gradual, Alleluia, Offertory and Communion should preferably be in Gregorian Chant, with sacred polyphony reserved for the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus/Benedictus and Agnus Dei. There are polyphonic Propers and these would often have replaced chant in the 16th century; you sometimes hear them nowadays when an otherwise proficient choir doesn't know how to sing chant!
Pius X in his 1903 Motu Proprio banned noisy instruments which would have seen off the orchestral Masses of Mozart and the Haydn brothers had it been followed to the letter, which it never was. Paradoxically, the saintly Pontiff endorsed the noisiest instrument of the lot, namely the organ. When JP II in 1985 used Mozart's Coronation Mass at the feast of SS Peter and Paul (Wiener Philharmoniker and Singverein, conducted by Herbert von Karajan)I think that you could say that the orchestral Mass was rehabititated.
With regard to a point raised by Ignotus, the pall is there to prevent impurities falling into the chalice. For some obscure reason it was deemed 'uncool' by progressive clergy. I remember a priest at Nottingham cathedral having to interrupt the Eucharistic Prayer (post-Consecration) for several minutes while he extracted a fly from the chalice. Served the damn fool right.
Andy - The "why" is essential. Nothing in the mass is there without answering the question "Why?" It all has a reason - a good reason - for being included.
Why do we use bread and wine, not milk and raisin cakes? Why does the priest wear vestments? Why do we kneel for the eucharistic prayer? Why are there cloths placed on the altar?
I'm not in the least "hung up" on asking why. If there's a good reason - a theologically and historically sound good reason - then that reason should be stated and understood.
And I do not agree with your assertion that uniformity in liturgy is a necessary requirement for the universality of the Catholic faith.
And, if uniformity is required for universality, you have just eliminated ALL of the non-Latin rite Churches from the Universal Church, because there is great diversity within and among them in how the liturgy is celebrated.
Andy, Ignotus knows all that. You are wasting your breath. He is deliberately obtuse and secretly mocks you, Fr., and the rest of us. He is absolutely the worst fruit a seminary can produce.
I agree with Pater Igntus that, "No priest ought to say 'My Lord and my God' at the consecrations", and although I have had gnats and flies enter the chalice, I too, have never experience a dust storm of sufficient strength and proximity to enter into my chalice.
You are absolutely right. This is one reason why masses are so different from place to place. After the Council, individuality got exalted over uniformity.
I agree. After SVC, individuality was exalted over uniformity.
When the gospel is sung at a Solemn Mass, the thurifer is instructed not to swing the thurible. Why? Because it might distract people from the Word being proclaimed. EF ceremonial draws attention to the rite being celebrated. By contrast, the OF as normally celebrated has a plethora of distractions,from the priest's mannerisms to the way the female reader is dressed (short skirts and high heels are not uncommon), from the irritating bidding prayers to the kiddies trooping in at the offertory with the pictures they have drawn. Not to mention the non-liturgical hymns and 'songs'. I find the whole thing insufferable. Wnen the OF is celebrated ad orientem and in Latin, with the music proper to the liturgy, it is transmogrified and the distractions more or less disappear.
William B, that "mass of victory" sounds awful. I can't imagine the Gloria to the melody of the CHeers theme song. Actually, I can, but's its quite frightening.
For my taste, one of the best mass settings out there is the Belmont Mass by Christopher Walker. It should be used in every parish, at least part of the year. Father McD, what mass settings do you employ in your parish?
right now in terms of the revised English settings, we use the Mass of Creation (but not the Gloria) and the People Mass, which is very nice.
We use the Missa Simplex for the Gloria which people now know by heart and belt out. We'll learn other other parts for that too.
We usually only use no more than four settings per year.
@ Pater Ignotus;
Let's see...and no, I'm not humoring you, I sincerely have a problem with your whole mindset.
You say, "Andy - The "why" is essential. Nothing in the mass is there without answering the question "Why?" It all has a reason - a good reason - for being included."
I agree to a point, but you missed my point earlier. We don't ask why on a specific level. There is no reason for it. We come to understand through assent of the will. I am not concerned with why the arms are held a certain way, just that they are. I'm not concerned why the host and chalice are lifted in a certain manner, just that they are. I am not concerned that the priest celebrates the Mass the same way as every other priest, JUST THAT HE DOES!
The "why" question is more "why don't the majority of priests just do what the Church asks?" (That is not rhetorical, btw...I would like an answer which is clear and not full of BS).
You go on to aske, "Why do we use bread and wine, not milk and raisin cakes? Why does the priest wear vestments? Why do we kneel for the eucharistic prayer? Why are there cloths placed on the altar?"
Those are all important questions, but they have been answered and the answer is clear. We don't need to dwell on them. The "why" question which has not been answered is, "Why do the vast majority of priests find it to be acceptable to deviate from the rubrics? Why do the vast majority of priests think that it is accpetable to deviate from accepted liturgical theology?"
Those, dear Father are the real questions why. And again, those are not rhetorical, I would like a straight answer from you on that too.
You go on, "I'm not in the least "hung up" on asking why. If there's a good reason - a theologically and historically sound good reason - then that reason should be stated and understood."
Good then you have no problem answering my questions. Thank you.
Finally, you state, "And I do not agree with your assertion that uniformity in liturgy is a necessary requirement for the universality of the Catholic faith."
Ah, but it is. I am a Latin Rite Catholic. My charism is attached to the Roman Rite of the Mass, as is the majority of Catholics through the world. So, while I acknowledge that there are other Rites, I am not attached to them, because they are not part of my heritage. I am concerned with only the Roman Rite and the two Forms there within.
So, you can go on and on about the misleading statements regarding diversity of Rites. The other 22 Rites have no bearing on my liturgical experience, insofar as I choose, legitimately to demand that the Latin Rite priests consistently and uniformly celebrate the Roman Rite properly and universally so.
Perhaps the deficiencies of the Novus Ordo are crystallized in the fact that it leads to diffuse blog discussions (like this one) of how to pull it out of the ditch.
@ Henry;
I don't think that there is a way to pull it out of the ditch, without totaling it. I think that the only way to save it is to overhaul it.
I liken it this way. Look at the modified street rods that are out there. It would be like taking a '42 Chevy coupe and restoring it to 100% stock body and interior, while souping up the chassis and ZR1 engine package.
But realistically, there is nothing wrong with a 216 inline 6-cylinder small block which was what was original to the car, it adds stock value and authenticity to the car.
In short Henry...sometimes a reform is good, but a restoration always adds value. I think that the leadership which heads Holy Mother Church could learn something. Just sayin'.
Father McD... really? Marty Haugen? Really?
Post a Comment