Thursday, October 4, 2012

OKAY, LET'S GO OVER THIS ONE MORE TIME, THE HOLY FATHER HAS REITERATED THAT EXPERTS CAN'T MANUFACTURE THE LITURGY: I.E. POPE PAUL VI AND HIS CONCILIUM--THAT'S WHAT IS RADICAL ABOUT POPE BENEDICT'S CRITQUE OF MANUFACTURED LITURGIES





What is radical about what the Pope said and has been saying, even before becoming pope is that you can't manufacture the Liturgy. I think he is speaking of Bishop Annibale Bugnini and friends and even of Pope Paul VI--that's the bombshell and what this cadre of well-intentioned pastors did was to open the door to more tinkering and manufacturing by the unwashed masses of both clergy and laity in the post-Vatican II Church, including yours truly in the 1980's, but I wasn't alone!

I think we are hearing rumblings from high places, like the pope, Cardinal Burke and others in the Curia which are words of preparation for other bishops and the laity that a third Roman Missal is being developed which will be more like the Tridentine Mass in Order and style, (chant being a big part of this reform) and that what we will see with the Tridentine Mass is what the Council actually suggested, noble simplicity that has to be viewed in light of what occurred in the 20th century prior to the Council, leading to the 1962 missal; a bit more vernacular, especially for the Scriptures and changing parts of the Mass, eliminating useless repetition, i.e three confiteors to one, three "Lord, I am not worthy, to one and the duplication of the priest's Communion Rite and the Communion Rite of the laity. It also called for the more lavish use of Scripture and despite what some say about the revised lectionary, it is, I believe, precisely what the Council envision, although that doesn't mean that the revised lectionary can't be revised again.

So what, in my clairvoyant view will the true to the Council's vision of the Tridentine Mass be? It will be the Tridentine Rite with its rubrics and the following for the Mass itself: Read on:

I. The Prayers at the Foot of the altar will be recited quietly by the priest and ministers as their preparation to enter the "holy of holies." The double confiteor will be eliminated and priest and ministers will say the one together and the priest will offer in the "us" voice the absolutions. But while private, it will be public for all to see as the official Introit in chanted in Gregorian melody in either Latin or the vernacular with the laity encourage to chant the Introit's antiphon as in Responsorial fashion. Hymns may not be substituted.

II. After the prayers at the Foot of the Altar, the priest ascends the altar saying his private prayers and then incenses the altar and goes to his chair. When the Introit is concluded, the Kyrie is chanted in Greek, the Gloria in Latin and the Collect in Latin or the Vernacular.

III. The Liturgy of the Word will be as it is now in the Ordinary Form but the Gradual will be an option along with the Responsorial Psalm and the revised Lectionary will be used.

IV. The Offertory will be the Tridentine's Rite, except the "offerings" may be brought up in procession after the Credo is chanted in Latin and a brief "Universal Litany" is offered, but prescribed from the missal with no more than four options. After the official Offertory Antiphon is chanted, an additional anthem or congregational hymn may be sung

V. After the Orate Fratres in Latin or the vernacular is said, the Secret is chanted in Latin or the vernacular in a audible voice.

VII. The Preface is chanted in Latin or the vernacular.

VIII. The Sanctus and Benedictus are sung as a whole with the "Sign of the Cross" as the Benedictus is chanted.

IX. The Eucharistic Prayer is chanted or spoken. Beginning with the Epiclesis through both consecrations, a low voice is used if spoken, but the option of chanting these is also possible even if the rest of the Eucharistic Prayer in spoken aloud.

X. The Rite of Holy Communion is the Tridentine's Rite with the exception of it being prayed in chanted or spoken form in Latin or the Vernacular beginning with the Pater Noster. However, the duplication of the priest and laity's communion rites is elimated and the "Lord I am not worthy" is recited once only. This means that after the priest's private prayers of receiving Holy Communion are completed, he turns to the congregation, after genuflecting for the "Ecce Agnus Dei" and then turns back to the altar to receive Holy Communion himself first and then distributes Holy Communion to the ministers and congregation as the Communion Antiphon is chanted and any additional hymns for the congregation. After Holy Communion, all singing comes to an end for silent meditation and then the Prayer After Holy Communion from the chair.

XI. announcements and acknowledgements are then made.

X. The Ordinary Form's Blessing and dismissal occurs.

XI. The recessional may be accompanied by instrumental organ or congregational hymns

16 comments:

Andy Milam said...

So, breaking down this comment a bit, I'm going to be a little critical, but I'm also going to give some praise, because it is due.

First....

You say, "what we will see with the Tridentine Mass is what the Council actually suggested, noble simplicity that has to be viewed in light of what occurred in the 20th century prior to the Council, leading to the 1962 missal; a bit more vernacular, especially for the Scriptures and changing parts of the Mass, eliminating useless repetition, i.e three confiteors to one, three "Lord, I am not worthy, to one and the duplication of the priest's Communion Rite and the Communion Rite of the laity."

I have to take issue with this. The only vernacular that should be employed is the readings and that is already being done. The bringing of the propers into the vernacular is pure innovation and unnecessary. If we are going for "noble simplicity" the addition of the vernacular is not simpler, it is more complex. Another moving part which must be dealt with.

As for duplication, then can we expect only one Kyrie elesion and Christe elesion, as opposed to 9 or three? Also, are you suggesting that we do away with the responsorial psalm altogether? Also, are you suggesting that we do away with the bidding prayers or so-called "prayers of the faithful?" Because all of those are repetition as well. And except for the 9-fold Kyrie, useless.

Regarding the threefold Domine non sum dignus, It is clear that this is an allusion to the 3 days in the tomb and the resurrection. However, if you think that it is repetition which is useless, I'd like to know why.

Second, you state, "It also called for the more lavish use of Scripture and despite what some say about the revised lectionary, it is, I believe, precisely what the Council envision, although that doesn't mean that the revised lectionary can't be revised again."

I agree with you 100%. I think that the lectionary does need to be revised again. But in order to do that, it should be restored and it should follow the liturgical year more closely. As it is right now, per tempus annum is all over the place and while some say it follows a pattern (and it does), it is disjointed with the other seasons. It doesn't follow the whole of the liturgical year very well. I think that it is also absolutely WAY to complex and should be returned to a simple form of one year and repeated. The lectionary as it existed for centuries taught the most important aspects of Holy Writ. Now, it is just "cram as much as we can into as small a space as we can." We agree 100% that there should be reform of the lectionary. Pure praise.

(cont.)

Andy Milam said...

As for the breakdown:

I. We agree with the exception of the vernacular
II. We agree with the exception of the vernacular, as long as the priest says the prayers at the altar before descending
III. Eliminate the responsorial psalm, see above.
IV. No. The traditional offertory completely restored. It was so butchered, that it must be returned to it's original state. The offertory belongs to the priest, not the laity. That is a change in theology, from the TLM to the Novus Ordo which has been very harmful.
V. Agree, except no vernacular
VI. (VII, I feel like an anti-pope is in the room now) Agree except no vernacular
VII. (VIII) I can agree to that
VIII. (IX) As long as it is in Latin.
IX. (X) No vernacular. And the idea that the laity's communion is a duplication is part of the change in theology. The Mass itself is the priest's. The laity's reception of Holy Communion is not necessary, save once a year. The obligation is to assist at Mass, not receive Holy Communion. The faithful should understand that their reception of Holy Communion is different than that of the priest. It is a theological necessity.
XII. (XI) Save them for the bulletin. It forces the need for it.
XIII. (X) Absolutely not. The traditional blessing is much richer and more full of meaning. And it is necessary to have the Last Gospel. The message is one of great solace when sending forth and should not be underestimated.

XIV. (XI) We agree

By and large, I think your format would be more than acceptable, with the obvious elimination of the vernacular, which only serves to confuse (outside of the readings). There are a few tweaks, but by and large, I think that it is closer. Finally, I assume (safely), that the Cranmer tables go away and the oriented altar with proper accouterments are restored?

(fin)

Joe Shlabotnick said...

I love the photo of Bugnini's crypt. I feel safer with him in there. Too bad we can't put his failed liturgy in the same place for good.

Henry Edwards said...

"what this cadre of well-intentioned pastors did"

I wonder in what sense can what they did be regarded as "well-intentioned"?

When the personal writings of many of the perpetrators--e.g., Bugnini's autobiography--make it clear that their intention was to destroy the Roman rite as it had been known. I do not believe that if any of them were still alive, they would agree with Pope Benedict that their fabrication and the Gregorian Mass are forms of the same rite, when they had famously declared the ancient Mass to be "dead".

Surely, this is not what the participants in this blog would regard as "well-intentioned".

ConnerW said...

"I think we are hearing rumblings from high places, like the pope, Cardinal Burke and others in the Curia which are words of preparation for other bishops and the laity that a third Roman Missal is being developed which will be more like the Tridentine Mass in Order and style"

This is a very bold prediction. I hope you are right. Although I would very much like to see this myself, I do not think that this will happen anytime soon. It took decades just to get a worthy English translation of the current missal.

Henry Edwards said...

A very pertinent CNS interview with Benedictine Fr. Jeremy Driscoll (consultant to the Vox Clara commission and/or the CDW):

The Liturgical Reform
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkoaLfR_iCg&feature=youtu.be

Mentions a "new missal" and remarks on how critical is what the priest understands his role to be.

James Ignatius McAuley said...

Father,

God willing what you "foresee" come to pass. We do need the traditional offertory restored,as it makes clear the angelic presence, something completely ignored in the OF liturgy.

The changes you mention in I and II are necessary to set the atmosphere of what we are doing, that we are entering into the sacred, the holy. There is nothing wrong with doing this in the vernacular. I would suggest those who oppose the use of the vernacular read Raya's wonderful book on the Divine Liturgy titled "Celebration." Another wonderful book, by an Orthodox priest is "The Heavenly Banquet: Understanding the Divine Liturgy."

Henry Edwards said...

In addition to focusing on what Vatican II actually recommended, the Church needs to learn from its mistakes--to take in to account what recent decades of experience has shown to be grievous prudential errors in its recommendations.

For instance, the diminished role of scripture in liturgy that has resulted from the goal of making the use of scripture more didactic than liturgical. The lectionary could and should have been made more "lavish" without actually diluting the scriptures in their liturgical effect.

When one follows the EF daily with a hand missal, one is deeply immersed in scripture throughout the Mass, with the proper prayers and antiphons generally tied in with the readings each day. Whereas in the OF lectionary, the proper prayers are usually divorced from the readings, and the scriptural unity of the Mass is shattered, resulting in both the didactic and the liturgical effect of the scripture being reduced.

In addition, whereas the primary role of scripture in the EF is to worship God in His own words (a properly liturgical role), in the OF the scripture readings are extracted from the liturgy pe se, and relegated to the "time out" for a Sunday school lesson that the didactic homily period has become, a time when in fact many or most are tuned out because it's not perceived as part of the active liturgy and true worship of God.

Anonymous 5 said...

Fr. McD,

I think your last couple of posts, and the very nice turn of phrase "manufacture the liturgy" which evidently meets with your approval, is the fundamental argument Marc has been making, at least regarding liturgical matters. Perhaps y'all have just been using different words for the same concepts--or perhaps BXVI has been talking with Marc!

Of course, BXVI's statements (especially in light of his "gradual" statements) raise the question of whether--since the NO mass was clearly manufactured--we should justly unmanufacture it as quickly as it was put into place. I think we should, or else risk stamping it with th imprimatur of little t tradition organic development. I thus make my usual response to encouraging statements from the Vatican: "All well and good, but less talk and more action."

rcg said...

A5, if by 'as quickly as it was put into place", you mean over the next 50 years, then I say, no, light the torches and grab a pitchfork. LOL!!

The more I listen to people who really know this stuff discuss it, the more I am convinced Vatican II Sacrosanctum Concilium were really badly written instructions. It could be some people (I won't say their name but their initials are Annibale Bugnini) conspired to create specific deviations to suit themselves. It may be that they instead insinuated softness and vagueness in the instruction to allow them to squeeze it in through the cracks later. In any case, it was a disaster that is on going and a gentle pull back on the stick does not keep us from crashing, we must act swiftly now that we can see the ground rush up on us.

Joseph Johnson said...

Pater Ignotus has, in the past, taken exception to my (and other's) description of the Novus Ordo Missae (New Order of Mass) as being a "re-write" of the Mass by Bugnini and the Consilium. Pope Benedict XVI may not have used my exact term, "re-write," in his description but he is essentially saying the same thing, as I see it. A banal, on the spot, manufactured product for the liturgy is a "re-write" rather than keeping what we had (the Tridentine Mass) and making a few small incremental adjustments to it. Even the name, "New Order of Mass" (Novus Ordo Missae) says it all.

John Nolan said...

The Gradual and Alleluia/Tract from the Graduale Romanum may be substituted for the Lectionary RP and Gospel Acclamation, and usually are when the OF is celebrated in Latin. Last Christmas the Gradual was used at the Papal "Missa in Nocte" for the first time in years.

The GIRM is not a good guide as far as the music is concerned. For example, it puts the Sequence before the Alleluia, which makes no sense liturgically or musically if the GR Propers are used. It also directs the Sanctus to be sung by priest and people together, which only works with the simplest setting (XVIII) which you wouldn't want to use all the time.

What is needed is a new GIRM which confines itself to rubrics and makes them far more specific. Excursions on subjects like church architecture should be dealt with elsewhere; apart from anything else they are subject to the vagaries of fashion and taste.

Then, a new instruction on music to replace Musicam Sacram (1967). For instance, if a polyphonic Sanctus and Benedictus are used, they should be split as in the EF, with the Benedictus replacing the Memorial Acclamation. The priest can pray most of the Eucharistic Prayer during the singing - there's really no need for the people to hear every word of it. The Pope himself has suggested the 'silent' Canon as an option.

ytc said...

SOMEONE on another blog said something that piqued my interest, something almost brilliant. He said that the difference between the silence of the OF and the silence of the EF is that the silence of the EF is natural and organic to the Rite itself, while any and all silence of the OF must be imposed based on the decision of the celebrant.

It makes sense of course, and it's not like I didn't know this, but I hadn't thought about it so succinctly.

John Nolan said...

Fr McD

I'm surprised that your schema retains two of the most obviously 'manufactured' parts of the new Mass, viz. the rites pertaining to the Confiteor and Communion. If you look at the Dominican Rite (13th century) which is undergoing something of a revival at the moment, you will find a Confiteor which is even shorter than the NO one, but it is still recited separately by the celebrant and the ministers. The PATFOTA are fewer and the Offertory rite is much simpler than the Tridentine, but the separate Communion of priest and people is there, although with fewer prayers. Bugnini and Co. wanted to blur the distinction between priest and people.

The Roman Canon (which would have been lost had not Paul VI belatedly come to his senses) needs to be mandated for Sundays and major feasts, with a possible concession to use EP III on weekdays.

Permanent deacons to be retained. However, they need to be trained to fulfil their liturgical functions in both OF and EF, which includes singing the Epistle and Gospel. There should be more instituted acolytes and lectors. This was what Paul VI envisaged when he abolished the subdiaconate. If it is decided that women may substitute for lectors (if none are available) then they must be clearly outside the sanctuary, and only men or boys may substitute for acolytes. You can't restore tradition and at the same time kow-tow to late 20th century political correctness.

Only priests and deacons should handle the Sacred Species. The vast army of EMHC to be disbanded, and Communion in the hand to be abolished.

Oh, and the time to read the parish notices is before the homily, as is the case in the EF. To maintain that the homily is part of the liturgy is a modern conceit. The Mass is effectively interrupted at this point, which is why the priest removes his maniple. There should be no interruption between the Postcommunion and the Blessing. When it was introduced forty-odd years ago it was quite controversial, and even now few people sit at this juncture.

Pater Ignotus said...

Henry, your suggestion that with a vastly increased usage of the Scripture in the NO mass is actually a "diminished role" makes me think of 1984 - less is more.......

John Nolan said...

Sorry, PI, I can't let you get away with that. "Less is more" is not an example of Orwellian newspeak but a truism often applied to the arts, and there are plenty of examples to justify it. Everyone knows Lincoln's Gettysburg address; no-one even bothers to recall the overlong bombastic oration which immediately preceded it.