Monday, June 3, 2013


Although our parish did not have an outdoor Eucharistic Procession for Corpus Christi (we had a marvelous one in 2009 thanks to our then parochial vicar, Fr. Justin Ferguson who organized it)we did have a Eucharistic Process after the Prayer after Holy Communion with adoration of the Most Blessed Sacrament at both our 9:30 AM and 12:10 PM Masses. The adoration after the 12:10 PM Mass continued until 4:00 PM when we concluded with Benediction of the Most Blessed Sacrament in the midst of a summer deluge and severe thunderstorm.

But I would like to offer reflections on our 12:10 PM Mass. We normally have a High Mass in the Extraordinary Form the first Sunday of each month at 2:00 PM. However since our parochial vicar is on vacation, I was alone Sunday with four Sunday Masses and it would be illicit (already is with four) for me to celebrate a 5th (Mass that is).

So we added more Latin to our 12:10 PM Mass which we celebrate ad orientem for the past year for the Liturgy of the Eucharist (the Introductory and Concluding Rites are from the chair as is normal for the Ordinary Form).

What we did I think is a template for how the Ordinary Form Mass should be mandated to be celebrated, without changing the Order of the Ordinary Form of the Mass one bit or ridding it of lay ministries open to men and women that are allowed for the Ordinary Form, despite the fact that those who love the EF Mass would like to see eliminated altogether.

If only the Ordinary Form had been mandated this way (and it could still be with powerful leadership from bishops especially the Bishop of Rome).

Introductory Rite:

Entrance Processional congregational Hymn: "Alleluia Sing to Jesus"

When the priest arrives at the foot of the altar, the hymn ends and the official Latin Introit is chanted in Latin by the Men's Schola. We choose the EF's form of the Introit for Corpus Christi. As soon as this is begun, the priest ascends to the altar, kisses it, and incenses it and goes to the chair.

The Mass begins in English with the Sign of the Cross, greeting and the very brief intro to the Penitential Act without any ad libbing or additional words to introduce the theme of the Mass (this is still going on today, elaborate words to introduce the theme of the Mass--it needs to cease!)

Then the Confiteor was prayed, followed by the absolution and then the Mass of the Angels Kyrie was chanted, the nine fold, with the congregation joining in the last half of each strophe.

The Gloria was the Jubilatio Deo Gloria in Latin, which I introduced--the congregation did marvelously in chanting it with the schola.

The Collect was chanted in English.

The Liturgy of the Word

We celebrated the Liturgy of the Word as we normally do with our two regularly scheduled lectors which happened to be two women.

However, we omitted the chanting of the Responsorial Psalm and the schola chanted in Latin the Extraordinary Form's Gradual for Corpus Christi. It was lovely.

After the Epistle Reading, the Alleluia was chanted as we normally do in the OF with the English verse.

After the Homily we chanted Credo III in Latin which I introduced and again the congregation did a marvelous job joining in.

The Universal Prayer was chanted by the cantor and me.

The Liturgy of the Eucharist

The schola chanted the EF's Offertory Antiphon and then a Latin Chant for Corpus Christi.

The Offerings were prepared ad orientem, and incensed, as well as the crucifix, altar, priest and congregation.

I turned to the congregation for the "Pray Brethren" in English, waiting until their complete response before turning full circle back to the altar.

The Prayer over the Offerings was chanted in English.

I chanted the Preface Dialogue in Latin, but English would have been fine too, the Preface was chanted in English. The Sanctus was the "Orbis Factor" I used the Roman Canon but chanted the part from the Epiclesis through the consecration of the Precious Blood and Mystery of Faith in Latin.

I chanted the Per Ipsum in Latin with the simple chanted "Amen."

The Rite of Holy Communion

The Pater Noster was chanted in Latin, except for the Embolism. The Doxology was in Latin.

I turned to the congregation for the "Pax Domini" and the deacon's "Let us offer the Sign of Peace." The Sign of Peace was exchanged as usual for the Ordinary Form.

I turned back to the altar for the "Fraction" (or Breaking of the Bread) as the schola chanted the Mass of the Angels Agnus Dei.

I turned to the congregation for the "Ecce Agnus Dei"(first half Latin, second half English) and their response in English and then back to the altar to receive the Most Precious Body and Blood of Christ.

We offer at all our Ordinary Form Masses Holy Communion under both Forms. This of course means Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion for the six chalices used and two others for the two Host stations at the side aisles. The deacon and I distributed the Sacred Host at the center aisle.

We provide kneelers for those who choose the exception to the USA norm of standing for Holy Communion and choose to kneel. This option works very well and is not divisive in the least. It is quite easy to distribute Holy Communion to those standing (the majority) over the kneeler, either on the palm or on the tongue.

Prior to the silence after Holy Communion, the schola concluded with the EF's Communion antiphon chanted of course in Latin.

The Post Communion Rite

The Post Communion Prayer was prayed from the Chair.

After very brief announcements, because of our in-church Eucharistic Procession, I asked all to kneel, the deacon went to the tabernacle, placed the Eucharist in the monstrance on the altar. I incensed it and received the humeral veil and we went in procession around the church returning the altar and placed the Most Blessed Sacrament on the altar, incensed it once again, remained in adoration briefly and the ministers departed quietly behind the altar to the sacristies.

MY FINAL COMMENTS: Bishops and Priests my age and older will have a phobia about ad orientem including the Bishop of Rome. Pope Benedict was the rare exception and had the nerve to promote it to his brother bishops and priests who snickered behind is pre-Vatican II back. (As you know,pre-Vatican II to many of these characters is a four letter word!)

The compromise of having the crucifix dead center with the Benedictine altar arrangement is good for the time being until my generation dies out, which we are.

Apart for Ad Orientem for the Liturgy of the Eucharist in the Ordinary Form, if only one other change were mandated, that of kneeling for Holy Communion with the only option for the Precious Blood being intinction. Our diocesan policy for the Precious Blood is the chalice in contraindication of what is clearly allowed in the USA version of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal as a legitimate option. I'm not clear why this option is not allowed as no other option in the Roman Missal is not permitted by diocesan policy. But in humility I embrace diocesan norms.

It won't happen under the current papacy unless Pope Francis surprises us all of which he is quite capable, but I would suggest the following mandated for the Ordinary Form Mass:

The chanting of the propers in Latin mandated as we did for Corpus Christi.

The chanting of the Kyrie (Greek) Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Pater Noster and Agnus Dei in Latin.

The clear option of ad orientem or the Benedictine altar arrangement for the Liturgy of the Eucharist for the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

Kneeling to receive Holy Communion and on the tongue, with intinction the only option for the Precious Blood.

This was last year's (2012) Solemnity of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist which fell on a Sunday and was celebrated very similar to how we celebrated the 12:10 PM Corpus Christi Mass yesterday except we did not have the EF's Asperges as a prelude yesterday,which I still contend is not illicit (having the EF's Asgerges as a prelude since it is clearly not a part of this Ordinary Form's Mass, but precisely a prelude as indicated by vesture of the celebrant: (2013):


Henry said...

From an interview with Fr. John Berg (FSSP Superior General) in the current issue The Latin Mass:

TLM: It seems that if one adds up all the proposals of the reform-of-the-reformers one ends up with something very close the the traditional Latin Mass. So why not simply return to where we left off--the 1962 missal--and leave the New Mass behind as a failed experiment?

Father Berg: Ultimately it does not reside with any priest to make any sort of authoritative answer to this question. . . . it is not for us to usurp the Churche's Authority. Else we would not be that far from the worst proponents of liturgical experimentation. There was a time when no one would dare, on his own authority, to make prescriptive suggestions regarding the liturgy of the Church. It is that old mindset of reverence for what God has given us in the liturgical prayer of the Church that we need to recapture first of all.

Mr. C said...

This might sound silly, FRAJM, but the current blog welcome image where you are shown alone, ad orientem, actually might pyschologically undermine your justification for the posture. I know the blog is full of photo examples that include all the ministerial entourages, but that photo seems counterintuitive.

WSquared said...

There have been some priests who have used particular occasions during the Church's liturgical cycle to teach the ad orientem posture, one of those being the Feast of the Epiphany. "People, Look East!" indeed.

Or, a priest might even say, "now let us face the Lord together; be not afraid!" before going into the posture. Maybe that might help assuage a few fears?

While no priest wants to push a critical mass of his parishioners off the liturgical cliff, there are times when I wonder if we exaggerate who will complain, and in what numbers. With the new translation of the Roman Missal, for example, there were the usual suspects who complained that it would "drive people away," but at the parish level, most people didn't complain at all. Furthermore, it's mostly true that complaints about being "driven away" are more than likely an excuse for something else.

At my parish, we had a parish mission one year where a visiting Monsignor not only had a Eucharistic procession through the Church, but he concluded with Benediction mostly in Latin. Despite all the "hatred" of Latin that really comes from some quarters, most people didn't complain, and knew how to chime in with "et cum spiritu tuo" as soon as Monsignor chanted "Dominus vobiscum" (if I recall correctly, that was a pretty robust "et cum spiritu tuo"!) Most people also knew to respond "et clamor meus ad te veniat!" to "Domine, exaudi orationem meum."

Templar said...

I wish I could have assisted at this Mass, it would have made up for my heartache at losing the 2PM EF Mass, but alas I was out of town and would have missed even the EF had it not been cancelled. I wold love to see the 12:10PM Mass gravitate to this for every Sunday.

Even though I could not be there, I thank you Father for your continued efforts at restoring Catholic Identity.

"It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. ~ Samual Adams"

John Nolan said...

729 teivanaThe chants from the Graduale Romanum are not 'EF', since the Graduale was revised in 1974 to accommodate it to the Novus Ordo.

For the last forty years I have regularly attended the NO in Latin. It does not need to be mandated, it merely requires an effort of will and some fairly modest musical resources.

I notice you make no mention of the Corpus Xi Sequence, the Lauda Sion. I know it's long, and has an ambitus of an octave and a half, but I hope your reason for not including it wasn't because your congregation would have revolted rather than sit for ten minutes and listen to something worthwhile.

Unknown said...

There is something amiss about this. I am not sure if I will adequately get my thought across, but I think that I would like to make this statement:

I find there something problematic about substituting EF propers for OF propers. While the feast may be the same, the liturgical action is not. The TLM should remain with the TLM and the Novus Ordo should remain with the Novus Ordo.

Here is a logistical question, which is not intended to be malicious, but one that I have been pondering....IF the precious blood is also the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, just as the Sacred Host is, should not kneelers be present for reception from the cup, as well? Why must we (the faithful) be forced to receive from the cup standing? It seems to be a major inconsistency.

I have my own views regarding Missa Mixta (which is what I consider this to be) and they mirror Fr. Berg's.

ytc said...

Fr Berg's advice is good, but unfortunately it's not going to happen. I have no confidence.

John Nolan said...

"I find that there is something problematic about substituting EF propers for OF propers".

At a sung Mass the first choice according to the GIRM for Introit and Communion is the chant given in the Graduale Romanum. The Gradual and Alleluia/Tract from the GR may also replace those given in the Lectionary. So for Corpus Christi we would have:
IN. Cibavit eos
GR. Oculi omnium
AL. Caro mea
OF. Portas caeli OR Sanctificavit Moyses
CO. Qui manducat (A and B), Hoc corpus (C)

In the EF the Offertory is Sacerdotes Domini and the Communion is Quotiescumque manducabitis. These could legitimately be used in the OF since there is no Offertory chant in the Missal and the GIRM does allow for an alternative antiphon or psalm at the Communion.

It is misleading to talk of the "EF's" Introit or Gradual since these are common to both forms. For some reason the compilers of the Paul VI Missal included Communion 'antiphons' which had no musical settings and so they tend to differ from those in the Graduale. In a sung Mass it is the Graduale (not the Missal) versions which should be used.

Templar said...

Receiving the Blessed Sacrament under the species of Wine is not something any Catholic should need or desire.

Why? Because it was introduced to facilitate and justify the Laity standing to receive, since receipt kneeling (unless by intinction) is just too awkward and therefore a risk. The Laity have no need of the Precious Blood as a separate and distinct article.

Anonymous said...

In fact, the following propers were used:

IN. Cibavit eos
GR. Oculi omnium
AL. Caro mea
OF. Sarcerdotes Domini
CO. Quotiescumque manducabitis

Joseph Johnson said...

I agree with both Andy and with Templar. Holy Communion under either form is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ and kneeling should be done if one chooses to receive under both forms, if offered.

However, because reception of either form is just as completely Christ as under both forms the reception of both forms separately (as two separate receptions) is redundant, except for the external aspect (sign value?). We should simply go back to receiving the Host only while kneeling and on the tongue (with a paten under the chin) or by intinction while kneeling (and on the tongue only by necessity in this case).

John Nolan said...

Offering the Chalice to the laity (who would not have communicated frequently anyway) died out in the Latin Church during the 13th century. Vatican II wished to restore it on an occasional basis. When the NO was introduced, kneeling for Communion was still the norm. CITH and standing was authorized in England and Wales in 1975 (before the USA allowed it) but offering the Chalice on a regular basis began in the 1980s. The reason? The arrival on the scene of a vast army of Extraordinary Monsters for whom employment had to be found.

The idea of lay people assisting the clergy in distributing Communion in exceptional circumstances was quickly perverted into an aspect of FCAP. It gave women a visible liturgical role for the first time and they quickly came to regard it as an entitlement. I once heard a priest haranguing those in the congregation who deliberately chose to receive only from the priest or deacon, which I thought was a damned cheek.

Unknown said...

"However, because reception of either form is just as completely Christ as under both forms the reception of both forms separately (as two separate receptions) is redundant, except for the external aspect (sign value?). We should simply go back to receiving the Host only while kneeling and on the tongue (with a paten under the chin) or by intinction while kneeling (and on the tongue only by necessity in this case)."

I am absolutely on board with the continuation of this thought. Redundancy is the key. IF the Novus Ordo is to be "nobly simple" as has been preached, and teached, and kicked down our throats for the last 50 years, then why are we making it so much more complex in everything that is done. A couple of key thoughts;

1. The priest was the main minister. Now he presides over a vertible cornucopia of so-called lay ministers.

a. Lay song leaders
b. Lay readers
c. Lay gift bearers
d. Lay Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion
e. Lay greeters
f. Altar girls or boys, or both

2. The Lectionary cycle has become invaribly complex, to the point where the average layman is so confused by it that he must rely on a hand missal for the readings, EVEN though it is in his native tongue.

3. The introduction of multiple options for the various "Rites" of the Mass itself.

a. Multiple forms of antiphons
b. Multiple forms of introductory rites
c. Mulitple forms of the Eucharistic Prayers
d. Hundreds of songs

There is nothing "simple" about the Mass. There is only complexity on a scale which is very hard to catechize, because there is no consistency in how the Mass will be presented. From parish to parish; or even priest to priest inside the parish, there are differences which make the "experience" of Mass so different that trying to teach it requires....well, Redundancy.

Henry said...

"For some reason the compilers of the Paul VI Missal included Communion 'antiphons' which had no musical settings and so they tend to differ from those in the Graduale."

As I understand it, the brief introit and communion "antiphons" (not true introits or communion verses) are included in the OF Roman missal to be said by the priest (alone) in a Mass that is not sung. No offertory antiphon is included in the missal because there is no natural place in the Mass for the priest to say it.

These missal antiphons were not intended for use in sung Masses, where the antiphons are to be sung by the choir in their more extended Graduale forms. (Aside from the substitutions unfortunately allowed now.) Of course, the Graduale antiphons--and the psalm verses to which they are responses--are now set to music in English (e.g., Simple English Propers, etc).

ytc said...

It's funny that noble simplicity strangely doesn't ever seem to apply to the ideological contortions that crafted the Novus Ordo...

I wish I had a trad friend like Andy or Gene in my parish. But what is a poor young guy like myself to do? Our youth seem to trend on the traddier side of things, but there are few bona fide young adults here.

John Nolan said...

Andy Milam,

Once again you have hit the nail firmly on the head. There might have been, in the 1950s, dissatisfaction with the liturgy in some of the more progressive camps in Europe, but elsewhere there was none. The changes were forced on the bishops, forced on the laity, by a self-referencing clique who had managed to enlist the pope (the weakest of modern times) onto their side. All this wittering on the internet need not have happened.

Steven Surrency said...

Andy is right on. It isn't simple at all.

Unknown said...

"I wish I had a trad friend like Andy or Gene in my parish."

Be careful for what you wish. Any one of us who are hardcore traditionalists can tell you that holding this line is the hardest part of being Catholic.

We are marginalized, ostracized and left in the cold without a lamp. We are lower than the lepers and we are treated with as much dignity as the scrapings from cowboy boots.

However, those of us who are the "holders of the line" know one thing...the road is narrow and not easy to tread. I have often considered just pulling the plug, but I love the Church so much that I cannot bring myself to do it.

The saddest part is that I cannot rely on pastors and/or curates to give me any form of catechetics. I must forage ahead and look to the classical masters. I rely on Aristotle, Aquinas, St. John of the Cross, Bl. Cardinal Newman, Pope St. Pius X, Ven. Pius XII, Mons. Schuler, Frs. Altier and Zuhlsdorf and a few other orthodox theologians and/or saints to guide me....and that just shouldn't be. I should be able to look to my pastor and/or curate to get the answers to being Catholic.

As it is don't wish for something that will cause heartache. I certainly didn't. I accept it, because it is my lot and it is what I have cast, but I wouldn't wish it on you or anyone else. It is a lonely Catholic world in which I live.

John Nolan said...


I was your age when the Novus Ordo came out. One had the distinct impression of swimming against the tide, but in those days all adult Catholics had been brought up with the traditional Mass. The liberals have now more or less had their day, but the damage is done and two entire generations have been formed by the post-V2 rupture.

John Nolan said...

Regarding the Asperges - it stands on its own as the first listed of the non-reserved blessings in the (older) Rituale Romanum "Benedictio populi cum aqua benedicta, diebus Dominicis impertienda" and is clearly separate from the Mass itself. Since 1967 it has been permissible for the priest to wear a chasuble instead of a cope. There can be no possible objection to its being given before a celebration of an OF Mass. To avoid confusion, it is as well not to omit the OF's Penitential Act, as you would do if you used the sprinkling option given in the OF Missal, which is actually part of the Mass.

I see no mixing of rites in the Mass you describe. The most solemn form of the Novus Ordo (Latin, GR Propers, ad orientem) does have a close external resemblance to the Roman Rite, and the only problem about mixing Latin and the vernacular was the poor quality of the translation in use until fairly recently. What I don't like are those liturgies that throw everything (including modern worship songs and 1970s 'pop' settings of the Ordinary - think Marty Haugen) into the mix, along with a bit of chant and polyphony, in the hope of pleasing everyone. The bad and inappropriate music should be corralled together in a single service which the more discerning of us can then avoid.