As everyone knows, I am not opposed to the Vernacular Mass, although if I had my way, which I don't, I would like to see more Latin to unify parishes rather than the on-going Balkanization of parishes into various language and cultural groups.
Three things that don't require too much change that would recover "mystery" i.e. Awe and wonder, would be the following in a vernacular Mass:
Ad orientem for the Liturgy of the Eucharist
The low voice praying of the Eucharistic Prayer
Kneeling for Holy Communion at the traditional altar railing or a kneeler if that is absent
Now, before anyone says to me, "well Father, why don't you do this now?" I will have to say the following:
We are not congregationalists as Catholics, we are Catholic and we must be in union with our local bishop and the Bishop of Rome.
Thus, our local bishop must encourage what I recommend and to help the local bishop move towards mandating it, like Vatican II mandated so much, the Bishop of Rome must mandate these things.
Will that happen any time soon? No. Although if a Pope Benedict affectionato had been elected the Bishop of Rome, we may well have been moved very close to it. Pray that Cardinal Sarah has a snow ball's chance in hell to be the next pope.
18 comments:
A bishop who opposes ad orientem, following proper instruction, should be looking for another line of work.
There is really no unity of worship with the OF. A plethora of options results in Mass being celebrated very differently from parish to parish. You might as well belong to another faith. And when the priest is disobedient and changes texts and doesn't follow the rubrics it gets even worse.
The noble simplicity of the EF stands in stark contrast to the veritable tower of babel we have created with the OF.
Fr McDonald
You could not be more wrong. In the OF you may not insist on kneeling Communion or receiving on the tongue, but there is nothing to stop you making it possible for the laity WHO HAVE A RIGHT TO RECEIVE IN THAT MANNER. In fact, it is your bounden duty to do so.
A bishop may not mandate anything which is contrary to liturgical law. However, he does not need to mandate what is in conformity with the said law. So to expect your bishop to tell you to do what is perfectly permissible is simply an excuse for inertia.
As regards the common orientation, the bishop cannot forbid it, although he is within his rights to require that it be implemented in a pastorally sensitive manner. Benedict XVI was also aware of this, and realizing the damage done to the liturgy by mandate, was careful not to fall into the same trap.
Being in communion with your bishop does not mean exactly copying his liturgical style. When he visits a progressive parish he will not demand this of them, and will not interfere with their style of celebration unless it is seriously abusive.
Regarding the Canon, in the OF the Preface is sung and the Pater Noster and embolism are sung. The EP may also be sung either in part or in its entirety, or it may be said. Provided it is audible, it does not have to be bellowed into a microphone.
Since when has conformity with the legitimate options in the Novus Ordo been congregationalism? I suspect that you are a victim of the very congregationalism that you purport to eschew. You daren't move in case someone in your congregation objects and complains to the bishop. Since you are near retirement you don't want to rock the boat.
I can sympathize with your predicament, but find your excuses spurious.
Not long ago the Archbishop of Birmingham carried out his visitation of the Oxford Oratory, and celebrated the principal Sunday Mass. His vestments were laid out for him (which included the pontifical dalmatic) and he was provided with an assistant priest and deacons at the throne. He celebrated 'ad orientem' and in Latin. No doubt the next parish he visited was very different. I doubt that he told them off for not emulating the Oratorians.
Father McDonald said..."Although if a Pope Benedict affectionato had been elected the Bishop of Rome, we may well have been moved very close to it."
Raymond Arroyo asked Cardinal Ratzinger about the use of Latin in the Mass. At the 3:55 mark, Cardinal Ratzinger responded to that question
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IrUTyBK4kE
Cardinal Ratzinger said that he favored some inclusion of Latin during Mass. He said that that would promote the idea that the Church/Mass is universal,
But he said that overall, the vernacular is of great benefit as that enabled the Faithful to comprehend, as well as participate at the Mass.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father McDonald said..."The low voice praying of the Eucharistic Prayer."
In regard to the Novus Ordo:
I don't mind the Eucharistic Prayer said aloud. That is, when EP1 is prayed, the majesty and power — power in EP1 conveys the Faith in strong fashion — of EP1 prayer is, I believe, of great benefit to the congregation.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Hate to say this, but I'm pretty sure Catholics both comprehended and participated in the mass prior to VII... hope that isn't a heretical position.... yet...
But then again, I don't even care anymore.
Come to think of it, maybe "clericalism" is thinking the laity are too stupid to comprehend and participate in a mass unless it is dumbed down.
If I remember correctly the changes in receiving the Eucharist went from kneeling, to standing in line, to standing in line and receiving in the hand. Simply following the sequence in reverse would be an improvement. It would require no architectural changes to slow things down. It also would be a gradual reordered. The line could even be rearranged to form where the rail used to be. It’s a brick by brick approach
I don't think the Eucharistic Prayer is permitted to be said inaudibly in the Ordinary Form. The Eucharistic Prayer is considered to be one of the "presidential prayers," of the Mass and must be said or sung aloud (GIRM 32). The Roman Missal's General Instruction also states that "the Eucharistic Prayer requires that everybody listens to it with reverence and in silence" (GIRM 78) - a requirement deriving from its audible recitation or singing.
Adam the first print of the 1970 Missal in its rubrics stated that the Eucharistic Prayer may be prayed audibly. This presumes that it could be prayed in low voice.
However, that rubric was removed in more recent adaptations of the Roman Missal. But even in these issues the quiet canon isn't forbidden outright.
But I doubt that anywhere in the world the Eucharistic Prayer in the Ordinary Form is prayed silently.
Father McDonald,
I believe I have read that in some places the Roman Canon is said silently (or inaudibly) at OF Masses.
Bee, I may not recall this correctly, but I seem to have attended an OF at St. John Cantius on Saturday night and I do not recall that it was audible like it would be at a typical Novus Ordo parish where the priest is facing the congregation.
I also believe I saw this reported occasionally in The New Liturgical Movement blog.
GIRM
"32. The nature of the “presidential” texts demands that they be spoken in a loud and clear voice and that everyone listen with attention."
"218. The parts spoken by all the concelebrants together and especially the words of consecration, which all are bound to say, are to be said in such a way that the concelebrants speak them in a very low voice and that the principal celebrant’s voice be clearly heard. In this way the words can be better understood by the people."
Presidential? That is the term which shows how wrong the OF has been from its totalitarian beginning. Presidential is a political not a spiritual term. Dictator would be more accurate since we are now subject to the whims of whomever sits in the “presidential” chair. How asinine.
"Presidential" isn't always a "political" term. When used of the priest-celebrant at Mass, it is not a political term.
One who presides at a graduation ceremony, a gathering of a monastery chapter, a meeting of firefighters at their beginning-of-shift briefing is not acting in a "political" way.
Anonymous K,
Why import a political term into the Ordo? It was a really dopey decision. Just more nonsense from the Novus Ordo. Presider would have made more sense.
"Presidential" isn't always a "political" term. When used of the priest-celebrant at Mass, it is not a political term.
One who presides at a graduation ceremony, a gathering of a monastery chapter, a meeting of firefighters at their beginning-of-shift briefing is not acting in a "political" way.
"Pope John Paul II will preside at a Mass on November 11 at 11.30 a.m. in St. Peter’s Basilica for the repose of the souls of the cardinals and bishops who died during the last year."
Nothing political there from the CNA.
"Cardinal (George) presides over 'mass of atonement and hope' for clergy abuse victims"
Nothing political there from the Chicago Tribune.
OK,
Why don't we call the President of the US a "celebrant?" I have no quarrel with the term presider which is a neutral term, but president in the common parlance means someone who is elected to office either by voters or shareholders or a board of directors. The congregation (or assembly) did not elect the priest president of anything. Maybe we should ask the Pope to rename the College of Cardinals the College of Shareholders (or Directors) since they elect him
"Why don't we call the President of the US a "celebrant?"
I suppose for the same reason we don't call the President a Troop Leader or an Airline Pilot. He's not either one of those.
Why not call him a celebrant? He is the national cheer leader at times. Makes more sense than calling an unelected priest a president!
Post a Comment