Sunday, June 14, 2015


In the revised English Roman Missal, there isn't the opportunity for ad libs that the previous translation had. Unfortunately bishops and priests continue to ad lib where ad libbing has been removed. In particular I despise secular greetings after the official liturgical greeting and comments galore prior to the Penitential Act. Bishops do this always! It breaks the continuity of Prayer begun by the Entrance Chant followed by the Sign of the Cross and religious greeting.

Particularly insidious was the ad libbing for the Form C of the Penitential Rite. That shouldn't happen anymore, but I suspect it does.

I don't mind options. I like that there are more options for the Eucharistic Prayers, although I think there may be too many and not enough direction about when to use the Roman Canon.

I think Eucharistic Prayer IV should be suppressed and that there should only be one Eucharistic Prayer for Reconciliation rather than two. The children's Eucharistic Prayers need suppression too (I had heard they may reappear, but haven't seen that yet).

I like the Eucharistic Prayers for special occasions, I think there are four of these and I have used them for daily Mass. Each has its own preface which must be used with it, like Eucharistic Prayer IV.

I think Eucharistic Prayer II should only be for daily Mass or Low Mass on a Sunday.

With that said, though, I do think that the Ordinary Form with Prayers at the Foot of the Altar (which would in effect change to order of the Introductory Rite of the Ordinary Form) should replace what we have now. (By change in order, I refer to the fact that the greeting "The Lord be with you" would be moved to its traditional spot prior to the Collect rather than after the Sign of the Cross, which even the Episcopal Liturgy has maintained over the years in its revised liturgical books).

Of course, if there is a recovery of "filled silence" such as the silent Canon, there is no need for additional Eucharistic Prayers at all. Will the silent Canon make a come back with Cardinal Sarah and his first step toward a reform or the reform with an appendix that allows for many elements of the Extraordinary Form to be inserted into the Ordinary Form?

Time will tell!


rcg said...

Whatever is needed to return the atmosphere of respect and reverence to the Mass is welcome. When I returned to an EF parish that is the thing that struck me most clearly. There is participation, too, although I admit it could be louder. That has been my contribution, speaking the parts of the congregation aloud, and it seems to be catching on.

Anonymous said...

I very much welcome the EF and Anglican Use aspects to the OF, it desperately needs it and I'm glad Rome has finally aknowledges this.

In your clairvoyance Fr. AJM, when do you think this will happen? From the way Cardinal Sarah sounds, it seems it could be sooner rather than later

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I think the appendix (which doesn't need to wait for a new edition of the Roman Missal, as it can be made as an insert) can come out relatively soon, maybe the next two years.

The reason I say this is that the revised Anglican Use Mass for the Ordinariate already has this appendix. It was in the works under Pope Benedict, but it was Pope Francis who approved this new Missal and it will have his name in it, not Pope Benedict's.

It makes absolutely no sense for the Anglican Ordinariate to have the privilege of this appendix for their Ordinary Form Mass and the general Latin Rite not have it.

Their new missal has had some publishing difficulties, but it will be out I think very soon and available to be purchased by anyone.

So I think soon and very soon!

Rood Screen said...

The one and only thing I'm looking for is an absolute statement permitting the individual celebrant, rather than the bishop, to determine whether or not the ad orientem posture is pastorally appropriate for a particular celebration of the Mass.

Rood Screen said...

As for the appendix, I really think the present Introductory Rites are fine, and I wonder if further options would only confuse the congregation. But perhaps I'm missing some pastoral value to an appendix of this sort that should be more obvious to me. I am very familiar with both forms of the Roman Mass, and I appreciate both, but I don't think the Foot Prayers are the strongest feature of the EF.

Anonymous said...

rcg, it's not a case of people catching on, it is a matter of rubrics. You should only be responding if there is no altar server and it is a dialogue Mass. Otherwise you will be getting up everyone's nose because the majority prefer the silence and then they are able to meditate on the words in the missal. You sound like someone who just can't get used to silence. It is really better not to attend Mass in the Extraordinary Form if you want to follow the rubrics of the Ordinary Form and it is very unfair on those who are trying to escape from what you are doing.

I went to an Extraordinary Form Mass said by a priest who offers both forms of the Mass. The person next to me who has attended the Mass before but prefers the Ordinary Form said "Amen" as the priest was giving her communion. He stopped dead and gave an audible sigh, and then continued on. I know someone like you who is answering and is causing problems at the Mass, so it doesn't work mixing the two forms of the Mass and, as I say, it gets up everyone's nose, even the priests so make your mind up which form of the Mass you wish to attend.

As regards the Ordinary Form of the Mass, I think Eucharistic Prayer I should be the only Eucharistic Prayer. To me it is the only one that gives Ordinary Form of the Mass any substance but it is very rarely said.


rcg said...

Jan, you are correct that the responses in the EF high mass are different, but they they are there. Gloria, Credo, for example. The people have a part in the Asperges, too, in preparation for Mass.

Rood Screen said...


The 1958 Instruction on Sacred Music clearly states that the congregation should respond vocally in both the Low Mass and the Sung Mass. That's the law of the Church.

Further, the Extraordinary Form Mass must be celebrated in accordance with the principals of the Second Vatican Council. Pope Benedict made this clear.

Anonymous said...

rcg, when you said "That has been my contribution, speaking the parts of the congregation aloud, and it seems to be catching on." I took it that you were referring to a Low Mass rather than a High Mass where the parts you mention are normally chanted by choir and/or congregation. However, if it is a low Mass but not a dialogue Mass as it seems not to be but you have been turning it into, then apparently the etiquette is that you should speak to the priest who offers the Mass about whether you should speak aloud or not. For example, I understand that the FSSP are not fond of the dialogue Mass as it has been seen as a slippery slope to Mass in the vernacular. If it is not a High Mass and is a low Mass where there is a server - who normally gives the responses on behalf of the congregation - then unwittingly you may well be getting up the nose of the priest and others who are attending the Mass.


Anonymous said...

Dialogue, I suggest you read the following article

where it says responses were permitted in 1958 and sets out the reason why silence is preferred.

I attend a Low Mass each week which is entirely silent and the priest says that is the rubrics for the Low Mass. This priest celebrates both Ordinary Form and Extraordinary Form and sticks carefully to the rubrics for both Masses.

In fact, I have been going to the Traditional Mass for over 30 years since the Indult of Pope John Paul II The Great and never once have the congregation responded when there has been an altar server. I have been to Masses celebrated also by the FSSP and all silent no response from the laity except in a sung High Mass.

And you are also wrong about the Extraordinary Form Mass being celebrated according to the principles of the Second Vatican Council because the 1962 Mass has rubrics all of its own prior to the Second Vatican Council and neither Mass is permitted to be mixed. For example, there are not allowed to be altar girls, or lay readers and Communion must be kneeling and on the tongue. I think you may have misunderstood something Pope Benedict has said. can you specifically quote what Pope Benedict said on this?


rcg said...

Anon, you are correct especially in how to let good manners guided by a little trained etiquette keep you safe. The first few Masses in any new parish are best done with minimal noise. The parish bulletin or marquee usually indicates a Low or High Mass so that is easy to know what to do. But even if I know that the choir is singing a Byrd setting I should pray along. Although chant is not difficult to sing, the exact count of beats can vary along with the exact pitch. I think it may have something to do with the "windage" of the choir or soloist and my own lack of skill. Perhaps if I was as accomplished as John Nolan, I could hit the notes square on. But not me!

Православный физик said...

Dialogue, Although it's de facto up to the Bishop to determine orientation of prayer, it is already up to the individual celebrant whether he wishes to celebrate Ad Orientem, or Versus Populum. I hope for an instruction which affirms this right for priests.

I think consistency is important for both forms of the Liturgy, in particular the OF, since it's de jure up to the celebrant which options to use. If there's going to be a plurality of options, they should be set so that we know exactly when they'll be used, not be left on a cliff trying to figure out what's going to be done.

The sung Mass is the normal Liturgy of the Church, everything else is a lesser form of it. I do actually support the dialogue Mass, but I think it would probably work better if the verses were chanted in plain chant antiphonally versus recited. It'd probably be a liturgical abuse if the PATFOTA were chanted, but I seriously think it'd smooth out the roughness of the dialogue Mass. (when the faithful are participating in them).