We added a 6:30 AM Ordinary Form All Souls' Mass so that we could have a total of the traditional three Masses for this day. Our normal 8:00 AM Mass is also Ordinary Form.
At the 6:30 AM Mass which I celebrated, there were only five congregants. Wherever two or three are gathered... I celebrated the Mass toward the nave of the Church. Of course with so few people there, and the congregation dispersed, no one seem to know how to respond or if they did they did it in a very low voice inaudible to my hawk like ears. They also didn't seem to know when to stand, especially at the Orate Fratres and Prayer over the Gifts as they remained seated throughout.
I was tempted to give them directions so distracted was I by what I was seeing. I was tempted to give them a lecture after the Prayer after Holy Communion about knowing what to do. But thank God and by his abundant grace and mercy I did not. I tried to ignore what I was seeing and focus on the Sacred Mysteries I was celebrating and handling.
And thus reason 100,000,000 why ad orientem is the healthy alternative for both the priest and the congregation. We focus on the altar and what God is doing at the altar and we all face the same direction, away from one another to Almighty God. We let God make the judgments about how well everyone participates both internally and externally and pray that by God's grace actual participation is taking place by both the priest and the laity.
But when the priest faces the congregation and sees things a skewed, he too loses the grace of actual participation in the Sacred Mysteries and becomes preoccupied by earthly distractions directly in his line of sight in the congregation. What a shame when Ad Orientem corrects all that and leads away from this sort of clericalism which even the laity can exhibit when we all become preoccupied by what we are or aren't doing and gaze on "fly in the ointment" in preoccupied disgust rather than gazing on the face of our Lord together. The enclosed circle of worship we have had for the last 45 years has been disastrous for actual participation and truly more detrimental to the laity who become victims of clergy and laity preoccupation with what others are or aren't doing!
35 comments:
"...No one seem to know how to respond... They also didn't seem to know when to stand".
I'm afraid the reality is that despite all the talk of liturgical improvement over the past forty plus years, the truth is that most practicing Catholics do not know why they do what they do, much less when to do it without being prompted.
Bring on the New Liturgical Movement!
This is an important post, Father, and one that I think might serve well as a homily at the newly ad orientem 12:10 Mass.
I'm curious - not directly related to this post: can the OF be said with no one else present (that is with priest only)?
One other thank you -- for having the traditional three Masses.
Why did they get rid of those sorts of traditions when reworking the Mass? That is, in some ways, a stranger question than why they reworked the Mass... I don't recall reading anything in VII that said we need to get rid of traditions like that... But I'm not an expert on its contents.
Even in the EF Mass a priest "should" have a server to respond. The OF required the same, however it all depends on what is feasible.
I see. That is what I was thinking - no server is kind of an emergency situation. I guess priests formerly HAD to say Mass everyday and there was no concelebration. So, I can see how that might create situations for many Masses without servers.
Thanks for answering!
The Ordinary Form Missal contains three seperate Masses for All Souls' Day just as the EF Missal. Every Ordo in the USA has the following:
"An Apostolic Constitution of Pope Benedict XV in 1915 granted all priests the privilege of celebrating three Masses today for the following intentions: one Mass for a particular intention, another Mass for all the Faithful Departed and a third Mass for the intention of the pope. A stipend may be received only for the first intention mentioned above."
Of course that last line takes the fun out of it all! Shucks.
Ha! The three Masses are all said back-to-back-to-back without stopping in the EF, though. I imagine that would be exhausting for the priest whether it was OF or EF.
So, while the OF has the three sets of readings, I don't think it has the same idea of the Masses being said together. But, I could be wrong about that - I've never seen it done.
Over here in Alabama there is a midday Mass in a cemetery, which I'd like to attend, but I don't think I'll make it. That's a pretty good idea, I thought (though not as "progressive" as your Requiem tonight, which I have to miss unless you want to push it back to around 10 when I'll get back to Macon)!
How great to see that the three mass tradition is alive and well!
A large altar cross with six large candles helps reduce the peril a little for me, but only during the Liturgy of the Eucharist.
As for Mass without a congregation or altar boy, I have a tiny parish of 80 households, and there are often weekdays when no one at all attends. The bishop gave me specific instructions last year to offer an OF Mass anyway on such days. The OF rubrics provided for these occasions.
I'm waiting for Father McDonald to lead us in a "March on Rome" to petition for a return to Mass "facing" God. I suppose an "Occupy Saint Peter's Square" would be going too far, however!
Father, very encouraged by your work toward true liturgical renewal. As a Byzantine Catholic, it's wonderful to see our brothers in the West "doing it right".
Myself and some comrades in the faith are heading to Macon this evening - very much looking forward to Faure's Requiem!
As far as tonight's Requiem, I totally disavow anything going on behind me both in the congregation but especially with the deacon and subdeacon! :)
Father, you need a well-trained MC to keep the deacon and subdeacon in line and in place during the Mass.
Not really a question for you to answer here, Father, but perhaps an idea for a post:
What are the main differences and similarities between the 1962 order of the Mass, the 1965 order of the Mass, and the Anglican Use order of the Mass? It seems to me, since the Anglican Use is celebrated ad orientum, and has Communion on the tongue while kneeling, it is closer to the TLM than the Novus Ordo.
The Anglican Use Liturgy is the Anglican Liturgy with adaptations to it to make it valid and more in line with the Latin Rite. I suspect it has characteristics more in keeping with the TLM although in English but follows more the Sarum Rite of the Latin Rite.
There is no reason why our current missal can't be celebrated Ad Orientem and entirely at the altar in English, a hybrid of English and Latin or all in Latin.
I think if the Church had simply maintained the 1965 missal's Order of the Mass and made a strict requirement for some of it to be in Latin, only the parts that change be in the vernacular, that we would not have had the upheaval and divisions that we've had and still have. I think if the 1965 Order of the Mass had stayed, but the revision in prayers, added prefaces, blessings, the RCIA parts and how the Sacraments of Baptism and Matrimony are now included as options in the Mass itself, as well as the revision of the lectionary, things would have evolved much more smoothly and in a disciplined way. Also, requiring that the Mass be sung and that all English music be a variation of Gregorian Chant and its options.
So, I think one could use the current missal and lectionary but follow the 1962 Order or the 1965 Order and that would be what Vatican II would have envisioned. The biggest problem is Latin and how much and what should be "mandated" or required.
My husband will be attending tonight's requiem to pray for his uncle Bill, who died about 2 weeks ago.
Bill's kids had him cremated without a funeral Mass, and are waiting until Spring to hold a Memorial Service. What a sad state of affairs- poor Bill- rest in peace.
I'm sure John Nolan will come and answer more fully, but my reading of the Anglican Use Mass is that it is basically the Novus Ordo Missae with some hieratic English. It does happen to be offered ad orientem with the more traditional bells and smells, but as Fr. M pointed out that could just as well be the case in a properly offered OF.
In other words, the Anglican Use is nothing like the Sarum Rite or the Tridentine Mass. It is very much like the OF is on paper, though. This makes sense because it is based on the heretical Cranmerian/Anglican/Episcopalian Liturgy, which served as a basis for the construction of the Novus Ordo Missae. The Sarum Rite had already been supplanted at that time, so it makes sense it would not be the basis for those sub-Rites.
And now John Nolan can come point out my errors...
I agree, the use of an MC is really needed. If the parish is missing anything for the mass like unbleeched candles, a hummeral veil, pall etc, how about a collection from the Faithful to purchase these items????
It is interesting to see so many references to the "tradition" of three Masses on All Souls' Day, a tradition that is as recent as Pope Benedict XV and the time of the First World War. I suspect that many of our blogsters who so speak would be unwilling to think that a "tradition" could have begun with the implementation of the directives of the Second Vatican Council or the introduction of the Novus Ordo/Ordinary Form, or, for that matter, although I myself would like a return to "ad orientem," of Mass facing the people. I would have expected that some "traditionalists" would, on the contrary, have disliked Pope Benedict XV's innovation in the same way as some dislike Pope Pius XII's Holy Week innovations or Pope John Paul II's Luminous Mysteries.
s Ancil Payne
Ancil, The difference is that the "traditions" imposed by Vatican II oftentimes (though admittedly not always) lack the organic development proper to true Catholic traditions. Many post-VII "traditions" are, problematically, merely rejections of prior legitimately developed Catholic traditions. So, you see the problem. And All Souls is a good example. The three Masses developed over time and then were summarily dismissed in the post-VII "tradition". That is why it appears like a rupture - the tradition developed over 500 years and then vanished within a decade. (Note my earlier discussion of how the three are no longer said consecutively.)
For example, here is a longer explanation of the tradition of three Masses for All Souls demonstrating its organic development:
"Other customs have arisen over time in the celebration of All Souls Day. The Dominicans in the 15th century instituted a custom of each priest offering three Masses on the Feast of All Souls. Pope Benedict XIV in 1748 approved this practice, and it rapidly spread throughout Spain, Portugal and Latin America. During World War I, Pope Benedict XV, recognizing the number of war dead and the numerous Masses that could not be fulfilled because of destroyed Churches, granted all priests the privilege of offering three Masses on All Souls Day: one for the particular intention, one for all of the faithful departed, and one for the intentions of the Holy Father."
"The Dominicans in the 15th century instituted a custom of each priest offering three Masses on the Feast of All Souls. Pope Benedict XIV in 1748 approved this practice, and it rapidly spread throughout Spain, Portugal and Latin America. During World War I, Pope Benedict XV, recognizing the number of war dead and the numerous Masses that could not be fulfilled because of destroyed Churches, granted all priests the privilege of offering three Masses on All Souls Day: one for the particular intention, one for all of the faithful departed, and one for the intentions of the Holy Father."
I know several priests who say their three Masses on All Souls Day. A few years ago, I was at the Shrine in Hanceville (AL) for All Souls Day, and they celebrated three OF Masses back to back, starting at 7 am. (Ad orientem in black vestments, of course.)
Incidentally, I wound up the Office of Readings this morning by expanding the closing prayer to a reading of the collect, prayer over the offerings, and post communion prayer of the three OF Masses of All Soul. They're all very beautiful, in both Latin and English. (For private devotion, I recommend my personal practice of ending the Office of Readings by saying all the propers of the day's Mass (not just the collect), and including an appropriate preface. for the day.
Marc, I see you consulted the same source as me for the history of the three All Souls Day Masses.
But I don't think it's warranted to say this custom was "summarily dismissed" after Vatican II. Not only does the OF missal (like the EF missal) include three separate Masses for All Souls, but I believe every parish I've attended regularly had 3 Masses on All Souls Day, even if only one other weekdays.
And many priests I've known said personally their 3 Masses on All Souls (two of them privately if only one publicly). Of course, these are the kind of priests who celebrate Mass 365 days a year, wherever they are or whatever they're doing. And, unfortunately, we all know also of post-Vatican II priests who .... well, maybe don't even say their divine office daily, and take "days off" from priestly duties.
Good point, Henry. I modify my post eliminating "summarily dismissed" and replacing it with "partially dismissed in some places".
"So, while the OF has the three sets of readings,"
Just to make a small point, Marc, since few Catholics pay much attention to the readings at an OF Mass, most just tune them out. But these are full Masses, with (more importantly) separate antiphons and proper prayers.
@Marc
The Anglican Use Mass is a strange hybrid, containing large chunks of the (revised) BCP with the OF offertory prayers and Eucharistic Prayers grafted onto it. Rite One is in hieratic or 'Tudorbethan' English, wih a version of the Roman Canon much better than the old ICEL version, but in my opinion upstaged by the more recent one. Rite Two is in modern English, with all four Eucharistic Prayers in the old ICEL 'translation'. I don't know whether or not these have been brought up to date.
The Novus Ordo in its solemn form, in Latin and with the GR Propers, is much closer to the missal of 1962 than this is.
No wonder Catholics tune out the readings - they are so poorly proclaimed. Unfortunately some readers don't proclaim, they can't even read. Training should be mandatory! Such a rich opportunity lost! BTW this could be a great project for evangelizing....
Thank you, John. I take it, then, that I am correct in saying the Sarum Rite has nothing to do with the Anglican Use Mass...? Would you say the parent Rite of the Anglican Use is the Novus Ordo? And so you mind expanding on your last sentence and whether you mean that in a negative way... Whenever you have time. I appreciate your insight.
I've never been to an Anglican Use Mass, but I have been to an Episcopalian Liturgy that was much more beautiful and reverent than any OF Mass I've ever been to.
There is now an Anglican Use parish (part of the ordinariate) about 2 hours from where I'm living. I hope to go check it out soon.
Marc, the parent rite of the Anglican Use is the Book of Common Prayer as used in the US Episcopalian Church (or ecclesial community if we're being legalistic). The recitation of the decalogue at the start, the wordy penitential rite just before the Offertory, the way that the celebrant goes straight from the Pater Noster to the Fraction; these are elements alien to the Roman Rite.
The Anglican Use has retained too many Protestant features to be acceptable to unreconstructed papists like me or for that matter to the Anglo-Catholics who have joined the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, and never had much time for the BCP. Ironically, it's only the addition of the Novus Ordo elements that makes it Catholic.
Incidentally, the Novus Ordo should be judged on its own terms. It was constructed on the ruins of the Roman Rite, and not on any existing Protestant liturgy.
A future Ordinariate Order of Mass will be based on the Novus Ordo. There is, hovever a danger if elements of Sarum are introduced as it will be seen as restoring some of the traditional prayers of the Roman Rite excised by Bugnini, and other Catholics may ask "why can't we have them too?"
John Nolan: "and other Catholics may ask "why can't we have them too?"
They can! Just go to your local E.F. Mass. If you don't have one, the parish pastor of local bishop is required to provide one upon reasonable request.
Unfortunately, Fr. Shelton, not every priest sees things as simply as you describe... Or as simply as the Holy Father intends.
Thank you, John, for the additional explanation.
Fr Shelton
Yes, we as Catholics have the Roman Rite and Fr Hunwicke, ordained to the Ordinariate earlier this year, chose to offer his first Mass in the Usus Antiquior. But most Catholics are only exposed to the NO and moreover to the dreadful way in which it is normally presented. When I was a boy we sometimes (usually in Holy Week) went to the Cathedral to experience the Roman Rite in its more solemn form. But the Low Mass I served in my local parish was qualitatively no different. I knew this at the age of eight.
Let me see if I understand this correctly. The Anglican Use is a hybrid liturgy based on the Novus Ordo and BCP, but it has TLM rubrics. So when I read rave reviews of the AU from people who praise it for being far more beautiful and sacred than the Novus Ordo, and almost on the same level as the TLM, what they are really respoding to are the rubrics, not the actual order of the Mass or the prayers. Ad Orentum and Communion in the hand while kneeling. Bells and incense. That is what causes them to perceive it as being more holy than a Novus ordo Mass. So, to its detrimate, the Novus Ordo is very light on rubrics, making it by nature to be casual at best, and abusive at worst.
....Or to put it more simply, "actions speak louder than words:.
@bret
What I know of the AU is based on a download of the Order of Mass and videos posted on YouTube. The rubrics are not those of the TLM, but what high-church Episcopalians thought they could get away with in imitating what Catholics do. Why does the celebrant wear a cope throughout the first half of the Mass? Don't ask me. The rubrics are similar to those of the NO when celebrated ad orientem, but with some mannerisms, such as turning to the people for the Preface dialogue. The Eucharistic Prayer is as it is in the NO Mass, and I see none of the TLM rubrics associated with the Roman Canon.
The clip I watched was supposed to be a solemn Mass but hymns were sung instead of the Propers. As I said before, the NO celebrated ad orientem in Latin with the GR Propers is far, far closer to the TLM than the AU can ever be.
I second what Jacob said above about the unbleached candles. They add to the somber character of these Masses in black vestments. Unbleached 100% beeswax candles of excellent quality can be gotten from the Lux Candle Co. of Ipswich, SD. They are a nice golden color, and smell great too! They're not the ugly artificial "Halloween" orange as are seen in some places.
And from what I've seen and been told, the humeral veil is not used by the subdeacon during a solemn Requiem Mass, as he does not hold the paten during the Canon.
Here is a website that has all the different Orders of the Mass, Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and historical (like the Sarum).
www.liturgies.net/Liturgies/LiturgyArchive.htm
Post a Comment