It follows scrupulously the GIRM of the revised 2012 Roman Missal and its rubrics and incorporates what is permitted. The only obvious difference between our 12:10 PM Mass and all the other OF Mass in our parish is that the Liturgy of the Eucharist is celebrated ad orientem.
I would honestly categorize this phenomena, which would never have happened here if not for the leadership of His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, as reform within continuity that he so earnestly desires for the Post Vatican II Church.
But what about the influence that the OF should have on the EF Mass?
These are my suggestions, some of which we have implemented in my humble parish, but not all until there is official approbation.
1. Latin should be maintained, but some vernacular allowed for some orations and the Scriptures. Currently it is permissible to do so at the Low Mass and I believe also the Sung Mass which is a low Mass that is sung. However, it is not foreseen currently for the Solemn Sung Mass with deacon and subdeacon.
At St. Joseph Church, the Scriptures are spoken in English at our low and sung Masses. And at our Low Mass, the Introit, Offertory and Communion antiphons are also spoken in English, since these too are Scripture.
2. The priest's art of celebrating the EF Mass should be more human and less robotic. This was already taking place in most pre-Vatican II parishes where the Mass was ingrained in the parish church and priest and robotic actions were not carried out unless a priest was pathologically scrupulous.
3. I think an expansion of the role of the deacon and or sub deacon for both the low and sung Masses should be examined and codified and more along the lines of what a deacon does at the Ordinary Form Mass when present.
4. The laity are called to actual participation as they are able with both interior and exterior participation, verbal and sung responses.
Any other gravitational pull from 45 years of the OF onto the now called EF?
12 comments:
HORROR!
1. Vernacular scriptures are only allowed at Low Mass, no time else, unless they are re-read at High or Solemn Mass. Still less are vernacular ANTIPHONS! :O
2. Meh.
3. Pass. I think this would be ruinous on the prevalence of Solemn Masses.
4. Already possible, and I agree.
I would say that it is not permissible for the read antiphons to be in the vernacular at Low Mass. This is not part of common practice, and it is most certainly not part of the rubrics.
It is much easier for the EF to enrich the OF than the other way around. This is because the OF's rubrics are so ridiculously lax.
Agree with ytc. Vernacular is not allowed for anything other than the Scripture at Low Mass according to the Holy Father's instruction. Even still, reading the scriptures only in the vernacular was not and is not the custom in the USA (as I believe it was in a place like France). Since local custom has the force of law, this is probably not to be allowed even in Low Masses in the USA as I think the Holy Father intended to allow this in those places where the custom was already in place.
I don't recall the Holy Father saying that there was to be a pull on the 1962 Missal from the Novus Ordo.
At any rate, the Mass is celebrated somewhat robotically because priests recognize that failing to follow the rubrics is mortal sin. So, they are attempting to avoid that sin by being scrupulous in their actions. But, I think the more a priest says the Mass, the less robotic his actions appear due to a certain level of proficiency from repetition and comfort (not due to his becoming lax).
I don't really understand your point about deacons. But, I do think we need clarification about the use of straw subdeacons given the abrogation of minor orders (that is until such orders are restored, which is my fervent prayer).
Oh dear, I would certainly apply for the subdiaconate if it were restored and open to laymen not pursuing the priesthood.
The subdiaconate is restored. I would like to see the permanent ministries of lector and acolyte also restored, so that the monstrous regiment of EMHC can be given its marching orders.
when i served mass today, at the elevation of the Host, I looked up while lifting the priests chasuble, and I saw the priest looking at the Host and he was crying. Does this ever happen at the new mass?
It is simply wrong to say that the sung Mass is the same as low Mass, except for being sung. To the contrary, it is both implicit and explicit in applicable Church instructions that sung Mass is essentially the same as solemn Mass, except without deacon and subdeacon.
For instance, Chapter XIII on the sung Mass in the current 15th edition (2009) of the classic Fortescue et al, "The Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described" is entitled "Sung Mass (Missa Cantata) Without Deacon and Subdeacon". It describes the celebration of Mass with much the same ceremony as solemn Mass, except for the absence of these sacred ministers. Throughout the chapter on sung Mass, reference is constantly made to the chapter on solemn Mass (and never to the chapter on low Mass).
Similarly in the instruction Musica Sacra (1958) we find the following definitions in Chapter I:
3. There are two kinds of Masses: the sung Mass ("Missa in cantu"), and the read Mass ("Missa lecta"), commonly called low Mass.
There are two kinds of sung Mass: one called a solemn Mass if it is celebrated with the assistance of other ministers, a deacon and a sub-deacon; the other called a high Mass if there is only the priest celebrant who sings all the parts proper to the sacred ministers.
Therefore, it is improper to read the Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular at a sung Mass, just as it is improper to read any other propers in the vernacular at a low Mass.
A priest or parish really should not celebrate a sung Mass at all until they are capable of celebrating it properly, faithfully observing the traditional ethos and practice of the TLM.
I myself would be no more willing to attend an improperly celebrated EF Mass than to attend an improperly celebrated OF Mass. Fortunately, the EF Masses that are available to me are properly celebrated, but I sense that in an era of inadequately prepared priests, this is not the case everywhere.
The subdiaconate is restored. I would like to see the permanent ministries of lector and acolyte also restored, so that the monstrous regiment of EMHC can be given its marching orders.
This is problematic, John Nolan.
Inasmuch as Ecclesia Dei affiliated groups are allowed to have subdeacons, the subdiaconate is "restored," yes. But it is only open to these men, all of whom are going on to the priesthood. No one else can hold this office. Now, granted, this was the same way in the past. But I wonder if it might be a good idea to restore this ministry either to all seminarians or to all Catholic men.
Secondly, the permanent ministries of lector and acolyte already exist. Paul VI's big idea in suppressing the subdiaconate was to encourage laymen throughout the world to take up these new ministries. Problem is, in most countries they are, in practice, limited to seminarians only. My hunch is this that is so because these ministries are limited to men, and the bishops in Western countries don't want to take flak for opening it to ordinary laymen who have no intention of going to seminary; that is, the FemiNazis would freak. Now, there are notable exceptions, like the newly Cardinalatial See of Galveston-Houston. But the vast majority of dioceses do not confer these ministries but to seminarians.
I am thinking about writing my bishop some crooning letter about how great opening the ministries of lector and acolyte would be for the Year of Faith and the New Evangelization. I truly do believe having these would be a great boon for young men, who I think are somewhat more likely to buy in to the militant atheist crap than females. Then I will summarily apply. ;D
And you wonder why the EF Mass attendance at St Joseph does not grow? Adherents do not want the OF influencing the EF, and the Pope has not said he desires that. The serious Traditionalists have fled to St Francis de Sales, and only the curious remain behind, confused.
Please let us stop being douchey. Good Fr. M celebrates the EF out of his liking for it and his pastoral solicitude.
The EF attendance at St. Jo's has hung around 50 or so. I am not sure why it has not grown, but I do not think it is because we have a bunch of people with intimate and sophisticated knowledge of the EF who are dismayed by certain omissions or liturgical faux pas.
I believe it is possibly because Fr. has proceeded with some trepidation for fear of upsetting loud-mouthed parishioners or the Bishop. Hesitancy or insecurity on the part of a leader is transmitted subliminally to the flock.
That being said, I do think the EF should be celebrated strictly according to the rubrics and boldly. Luckily, I am not as well-versed in the rubrics as some here and so am relieved of the acute awareness of mistakes or mild blunders.
Fr. is still growing in the Graces of liturgical understanding. We all are. His transformation of St Joseph's in terms of liturgics, pastoral presence and Catholic identity, and hands-on management has been impressive...nay, given some of the people here with whom he must deal, amazing. I pity the poor bastard who has to follow him here. I hope that is very far off...
Gene,
Fr. McDonald is probably the finest pastor in the country that I know anything about. Without any doubt whatsoever, his intentions are as good as it gets.
However, it is a serious concern--now that every Tom-Dick-and-Harry can celebrate the usus antiquor (which is precisely what SP permits)--that the Mass of the Ages is susceptible to the same clericalist tyranny of good intentions that has trashed the ordinary form, whose textual richness I much appreciate, feeling that many of its propers are superior to the traditional ones, but which has been ruined in practice by liberties in its celebration taken by individual priests (however well-intentioned).
Henry, I certainly agree with you. Thanks.
Post a Comment