 |
| Splendid: The Gospel being read in French, versus populum, at the Solemn Pontifical Mass |
Thank God for Robert Cardinal Sarah. He gets it! He understands that Pope Benedict when His Holiness unlocked the locked vault in the archives of Church liturgy, that having the EF and OF Masses celebrated together would lead to "mutual enrichment" not just of the EF's influence on the OF but just as importantly the OF's influence on the EF.
It has come to fruition, although Father Z lamments it. He should be doing a dance, a liturgical dance of happiness.
I lift this from Fr. Z's blog:
At the end of the Chartres Pilgrimage, during the splendid Mass with Card. Sarah in the Usus Antiquior, the Subdeacon faced the people instead of ad orientem, and spoke (didn’t sing) the Epistle in French. The Deacon spoke the Gospel in French. Epistle HERE – Gospel HERE.
I personally think this is marvelous and in fact this is what I have done had some of the EF High and Solemn High Masses I've had over the years.
What do you think about Pope Benedict's organic development of the EF Mass as Cardinal Sarah promotes in this splendid Mass?
36 comments:
Is this organic development or liturgical abuse?
Earlier today the NLM published an article on this, convinced that it was the latter:
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2018/06/traditional-clergy-please-stop-making.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheNewLiturgicalMovement+%28New+Liturgical+Movement%29
Rood Screen,
I detect the scent of "Eau de Kavanagh!"
I think Father Z is correct in this particular instance. I believe that it was a sung Mass, hence, I recall that the liturgical law in effect at the time of the 1962 Missal would have required both the Epistle and Gospel be chanted in Latin. For a low Mass, the vernacular could be used. WIth a translation of the Latin in the Missal this makes the argument even stronger for chanting the Epistle and Gospel in Latin.
It takes an astounding and disturbing level of arrogance to tinker with the Mass.
"The problem is that these elite OCD extremists think Benedict XVI..."
OCD...hey pal, easy on the Discalced Carmelites! They are zealous, not extremist
Can’t lessons be both worship and instruction? In the OF, I would love to see the lessons properly chanted more in the vernacular. In the EF, I guess I would prefer to follow the rubrics, more from the esthetic view that a Missa cantata should be sung throughout—it drops to earth with a clunk when something is merely spoken. And the vernacular can be repeated before the homily as mentioned, or one can follow in a missal as I would do since I generally want to know what is going on.
This was an international event, and it cannot be assumed that all the participants were conversant with French. Also, one of the glories of the Solemn Mass is the chanting of the Epistle and Gospel in their respective tones.
It is different with a Low Mass, where SP allows the readings in the vernacular, but even here there are problems. Which 'approved' translation is to be used? Traditionalists obviously prefer Douai-Rheims as the most accurate rendition of the Vulgate, but they may be fobbed off with a modern translation.
Mutual enrichment does not mean dumbing down or returning to the bastardized form of 1965, which will no doubt 'organically develop' into 1967 and then 1969, and hey presto! we're back with the Novus Ordo.
If we want the EF Mass to have its proper influence on the OF Mass, it has to be in the realm of reverence and mysticism. But for this to happen, more people have to be integrated into its celebration. What keeps priests and laity from engaging in the EF Mass is that the changing parts of the Mass, to include the Mass of the Catechumens should have an option of the vernacular.
I have always advocated for the option of the changing parts of the EF Mass to have an allowance of the vernacular. This keeps the quiet parts in Latin to include the Roman Canon. I think too, that it would be beneficial to keep the Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, Pater Noster and Agnus Dei in Greek for the Kyrie and Latin for the other parts.
I do advocate that in the Ordinary Form we should recover the distinctions of the the Low and HIgh Mass as well as Solemn High.
In the EF Mass, perhaps there should be an allowance of the use of a deacon for a normal sung Mass.
The fact that the Scriptures can be read in the vernacular at a Low EF Mass has already opened the door to the higher forms of the same Mass.
Lastly, let us not make the Mass itself into a God--the form of the Mass is not God in any of the rites of the Mass. Only God is God and Catholics know that or should. Making the Mass into a false god is idolatry.
They read the Gospel in French.
And, choose one:
a. The World came to an end
b. The Barque of Peter sank
c. Protestant "heretics" rejoiced
d. The majority attending understood the Gospel in their own language without having to resort to a printed "translation."
e. The people were led to the incorrect conclusion that the readings at the Mass are directed at them and serve a primarily didactic purpose instead of being integral to worship offered to God in the Holy Sacrifice.
I love the cardinal but this is wrong and an abuse and is NOT organic. This fly's in the face of the theology behind the rubric of why the gospel is sung north to Gaul. Father Z is correct 100%. In the traditional mass every direction indicated in the rubrics has theological meaning.
Fr. Allan,
You have your opinion, and Fr. Z has his, but you are the one that is incorrect.
When we look at the permission for Summorum Pontificum, the rationale for which it was primarily given was not the education of the faithful, nor the influencing of the Ordinary Form, but for the sake of UNITY.
This was a large, international event. Who was present? Certainly some were not French. Perhaps some were adherents of SSPX, weaker brothers on the margins of the Church. To hear this in either of those cases, especially because it is contra legem, would be quite off-putting at best, and might again lead to those little doubts that make one wonder what the Cardinal Prefect might suggest changing for the sake of “accessibility” or some other “pastoral” motive. It sows again seeds of division. Besides, Latin is suggested foe international congregations even for the OF, so why not here? (The choice raises far more questions here.)
We are the servants of the liturgy, not its master.
Carlton de Kavanaugh,
Nice clericalism on steroids condescension. Did you take lessons from Bishop Trautman?
“The fact that the Scriptures can be read in the vernacular at a Low EF Mass has already opened the door to the higher forms of the same Mass.”
Indeed! In liturgy, every loophole, however seemingly innocuous, leads to abuse that’s not. Thus the low Mass vernacular loophole, however well intended, was the kind of practical mistake that’s all too familiar. Because, as night follows day, some well-meaning pastoral types would inevitably say … If not this far, why not a bit further? Since the door’s already been cracked, why not elbow on through it?
A single instance of vernacular abuse, as at Chartres, is not a big deal. No doubt God will survive the desacralization of a couple of moments in this one Mass, and the pilgrims their deprivation of a couple of the glories of the great solemn pontifical Mass they’d hiked 70 miles to attend.
But we’ve already seen this movie, and it didn’t have a good ending. In fact it hasn’t ended yet, and only God knows if and when it will.
A limited introduction of vernacular readings—instead of rather than in addition to the proper liturgical chants--is where it all began, well before Vatican II. And now the typical parish Mass is directed to the edification and instruction of those present, rather than to worship of God. Once you start down the road of “pastoral adaptation”, evidently there’s just no decent place to stop.
In my haste, I neglected to ask several questions that might further contextualize or clarify the situation at Chartres, any of which would have rendered what we saw there licit (even if undesirable):
- Might there have been a long-standing custom of this practice that has gained the force of law? (Doubtful since it sounds as though this was not done in previous years, but not impossible)
- Might there have been a privilege granted to permit this? If so, then who granted it? (Note that since the Prefect of the CDF is now President of PCED also, neither Cardinal Sarah or the Bishop of Chartres are competent to grant such a privilege.) Additionally, even if such a privilege does exist, who chose to exercise it (since the existance of a privilege need not mean it must be exercised in every case)? The organizers of the pilgrimage? Or was it a unilateral decision made (and thus imposed)by the Cardinal or the Bishop?
- Did the organizers of the pilgrimage even get to weigh in on the question? Were their rights considered (c. 214)? If the change was imposed, was any consideration given to the fundamental rights of the faithful that were being violated?
Indeed, my concern (again about unity) is that this seems to continue to be a kind of misplaced paternalism that many bishops conflate with pastoral solicitude: the faithful don’t know what is good for them and I do, so I’ll just change this “for their sake”. That paternalism, and the violation of rights associated with it, is offensive regardless of whether it comes from a progressive or a conservative bishop.
The simplest solution to all this liturgical mess is the most difficult: All Roman Catholics should learn Latin.
This is not as farfetched as one would think considering that Hebrew was not so long ago almost extinct, but was recently resurrected as part of sacred Jewish culture.
It might be difficult to convince flag waving American Catholics that English is not the only language to be used in USA, but, then, that would reveal one's fundamental allegiances.
One of the biggest problems with the post VII Church has been all the tampering with liturgy. The TLM is not to be tampered with and this reflects putting a modern template upon the Mass of the Ages.
LEAVE IT ALONE.
How, Pray Tell, is proclaiming the Gospel in a language the people to whom is it proclaimed "clericalism" or "condescension?" Hmmm...?
And how is it that Scripture readings at Mass cannot be both integral to worship AND have a didactic purpose?
Robert:
It's "flies".
Apostrophes indicates ownership or contractions ("The fly's wing is broken" OR "The fly's bothering me.")
You are using "fly" as a singular verb, os it should be "flies".
Sorry, but this annoys me about as much as reading "I could care less" (it's "I couldn't care less").
If we want people to stop thinking we southerners are ignorant, we've got to stop using our language so carelessly.
Marc says this about the Scriptures read facing the congregation: "The people were led to the incorrect conclusion that the readings at the Mass are directed at them and serve a primarily didactic purpose instead of being integral to worship offered to God in the Holy Sacrifice."
I don't think that the laity even prior to the Council ever thought that about the Scriptures because the priest at the ambo would repeat in the vernacular the Epistle and Gospel prior to the sermon. Yes, the Church prior to the Council knew that most, perhaps the majority of people were not bringing their Sunday Missal to Mass to have the changing parts of the Mass in the vernacular so at least for the Epistle and Gospel accommodations were made.
Common sense would say that the redundancy of the Latin Epistle and Gospel then repeated in English was exactly that a redundancy.
As for the international crowd in France, shoudn't they have had their own hand missal to know what the changing parts of the Mass were in their vernacular. So a French Gospel would be known in any vernacular with that worship aid.
Fr. Matthew, Pope Benedict hoped that in the future with both forms of the Mass coexisting, that a new Roman Missal would evolve in an organic way and thus the Latin Rite would have only one Missal again, neither the current OF Missal or the 1962 Missal but a new one.
It would be foolish to think that the EF Mass will be the Ordinary Form of the Mass again. It is not going to happen.
But an OF Mass that it more similar to the EF Mass in its order, spirituality, and devotional reverence is possible.
Vernacular for the changing parts of the Mass will be a part of that. A liturgy of the Word more similar to the OF's than the EF's will be a part of that also.
“[H]ow is it that Scripture readings at Mass cannot be both integral to worship AND have a didactic purpose?”
They can: By having them chanted toward to east and north in Latin and then read to the people in the vernacular. Doing this, as has been the constant practice and immemorial custom, promotes true didacticism in that it properly demonstrates the nature of the readings; whereas, merely reading them in the vernacular to the people promotes the false didacticism that eliminates the readings as part of the sacrifice.
As for Fr. McDonald’s comment: I don’t take a missal to mass. And I usually don’t read the prayers in advance. I also don’t think I need to know the content of all the propers, so it doesn’t bother me in the slightest.
Fr M:
"Pope Benedict hoped that in the future with both forms of the Mass coexisting."
Pope Benedict was too optimistic trying to bring some semblance of unity into the Church over the liturgy. The fact is that the two "forms" of the Roman Rite are fundamentally incompatible with each other. The liturgical deformers saw that it would have been a simple deed to make the EF much more "pastoral" by simply allowing it to be in the vernacular. But that was not the issue. A new liturgical theology, a Modernist one, was called for. In this new theology, it is the understanding that is addressed, the human Reason, so the NO is mainly didactic, not purely latreia like the EF. Yes, that sounds like Pelagianism, but the Church needs to finally admit that the NO is too Pelegian.
It is curious that as I child all the lections were only ion Latin. Yet I knew a lot about these because of my chidren's Missal, and took them to heart because they were solemnly chanted. But today in the NO, people are just numbed by being constantly lectured at from the ambo, pulpit and altar: talk talk talk ... give me and the people a break!
Carlton de Kavanaugh,
It is clericalism to assume that the people are idiots and can only understand the Gospel if it is proclaimed in the vernacular when a translation is readily available to them. We don't translate Italian language operas, we provide librettos.
It should also be remembered that the 20th century liturgical movement was chiefly concerned with what they saw as the 'Low Mass problem'. Joseph Ratzinger concurred. There was no need to tinker with the Solemn Mass, yet by 1964 this was being radically altered, and for no good reason.
Traditionally inclined Catholics do not want a vernacular Mass. By all means celebrate the NO reverently, in either Latin or the vernacular, but this is a separate issue. Horses for courses.
Re: Pope Benedict hoped that in the future with both forms of the Mass coexisting[...]
Victor: That was Fr. Allan's assertion, not my own. That said, the way you describe the OF ("a new [Modernist] liturgical theology", "too Pelegian (sic), "fundamentally incompatible [with the EF]") sound very much like an outright rejection of the OF. That cannot be -- and indeed the OF is fruitful for many who attend (and for many of those, the EF would not be fruitful).
Fr. Allan: You said:
Pope Benedict hoped that in the future with both forms of the Mass coexisting, that a new Roman Missal would evolve in an organic way and thus the Latin Rite would have only one Missal again, neither the current OF Missal or the 1962 Missal but a new one.
If in fact that was true and was the mind of Joseph Ratzinger (both before and as Pope Benedict XVI), that same cannot be said for the mind of the legislator concerning Summorum Pontificum as explained by Universae Ecclesiae. Suggesting that SP was merely a means to an end of a "unified" Missal betrays the stated words of Pope Benedict that "It is a matter of coming to an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church." The unity is sought in the Church not the Missal. In fact, to pursue such a project may well be harmful to the good of souls -- it may well be an anti-pastoral goal (both in the sense that it harms the legitimate aspirations of those who seek the EF, and by violating the legitimate rights of ALL of the faithful regarding choosing their own form of spiritual life as expressed in c. 214).
It would be foolish to think that the EF Mass will be the Ordinary Form of the Mass again. It is not going to happen.
I never said that, nor even suggested it. Yet I also believe the appropriate time for arrival of the "unified" Missal is ad Kalendas graecas. I would be fine if the OF and EF were to remain such, two forms of one Roman rite. Two founders of of the City Rome, two Apostles the Roman Church is built upon,... why not two forms of a single Roman Rite flowing out from the same abundant wellspring?
to be continued...
continued...
The challenges at hand for the EF that I can see are threefold:
- To determine what the EF actually is by judiciously examining the various meddlings of Bugnini even back to the time of Pius XII (e.g. the pre-1955 Holy Week and Pentecost Vigil, the question of Octaves, the suppression of certain feasts) to determine what might be legitimate developments to retain and which might be best to roll back. A prime example is that of the Pentecost Vigil, which exists as a true Vigil in the OF, but was gutted as part of the 1955 reforms -- it is hard to suggest that it is not part of the EF, yet it is lacking in the Missal of 1962. Yet even this can only be done under the guide of the competent authority.
- To incorporate some legitimate mutual enrichment into the EF. A more unified Calendar of Saints would be a good start (though appropriating the OF calendar part-and-parcel would go too far). Some prefaces could be as well. Again, only under the guide of competent authority.
- But most of all, to preserve the "long period of stability" of the EF that Fr. Z identifies, even if it significantly delays the application of the above two points. Every time a "pastoral adaptation" is applied illegitimately or imprudently, it rekindles the fear among those who are attached to the older rites that the whole project of SP has been merely a long game to modify the EF into oblivion, this time for good.
This last point means that pastoral adaptations could be requested and applied, but only with great prudence and caution, and only by permission of competent authorities. This is why I have no issue with solely vernacular readings at Low Mass when it in beneficial. Likewise with the use of vernacular in portions of the rites from the Rituale. Even what was done in Chartres might have had some legitimate precedent in France, but if it was not widely known, it should not have been applied in the context of an international pilgrimage.
Reconciliation at the heart of the Church comes first, because it is for the good of salvation of souls. Everything else in a footnote. If the unified Missal that you desire is to come about by legitimate organic development, you will not live long enough to see it, and quite likely neither will I. If such a project is imposed by force, neither of us will live long enough to see the ensuing schisms reconciled.
“Common sense would say that the redundancy of the Latin Epistle and Gospel then repeated in English was exactly that a redundancy.”
Hearing the Gospel chanted to God at the altar in an elevated sacral language and register is entirely different from hearing it read to the congregation from the pulpit in a vernacular voice. One is addressed to God in worship of Him, the other is addressed to the people for their instruction.
How can two such different functions be redundant? Do one and it’s worship. Do the other and it’s didactic. Do only the latter, and people lose any sense of genuine worship. Which I’m afraid has long since happened to most OF attenders.
"It is clericalism to assume that the people are idiots and can only understand the Gospel if it is proclaimed in the vernacular when a translation is readily available to them. We don't translate Italian language operas, we provide librettos.
I am not assuming people are idiots. I am assuming that people do not understand languages they do not understand. Maybe you are the outlier here and can understand the Gospel in whatever language it is proclaimed, although I doubt it.
Mass is not an opera. No one is expected to participate fully, consciously, and actively in a staged opera. The audience is meant to spectate. While moving, operas do not communicate the grace of salvation. Apples and Oranges.
“No one is expected to participate fully, consciously, and actively in a staged opera. The audience is meant to spectate. While moving, operas do not communicate the grace of salvation.”
Pelagianism alert!
Carlton de Kavanaugh,
You are being contumacious (stubborn). With a translation in hand and hearing the magnificent chanting of the Gospel in a sacral language you have the best of both worlds. And there is no loss of fully, consciously, and actively taking in the Word of God. Your world is just banal, like a birthday cake with no frosting or candles. I pity you.
I think what is pitiable is comparing the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to Rigoletto. Or Nabucco. Or Die Entführung aus dem Serail.
You're apparently looking for entertainment at Mass, not a call to conversion and the offer of salvation.
"Be still, and know that I am God."
Carlton de Kavanaugh,
That's rich coming from a Novus Ordo priest!!! The liberals interject all sorts of gimmicks into the Mass entertaining, pardon me, more "meaningful." Why the guitars, the dancing girls, Father Talk Show host? LOL at YOU!
There is an interesting addendum to Fr Z's position from one of his readers. When the lection book, the Missal, is on the altar of sacrifice, the lection is an offering to God.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2018/06/reader-feedback-to-post-why-we-say-the-black-and-do-the-red/
It appears that Cardinal Sarah followed the 1968 Instruction 'Pontificales ritus', i.e. he pontificated sans gloves, buskins and sandals, gremial, and restricted himself to the use of a single mitre.
Moreover, the Cardinal encircled the (rubrically correct) freestanding altar (without gradines or faux tabernacle!) during the incensations. In doing so, the Cardinal, intentionally or not, highlighted that the concept of a freestanding altar (rubrically correct according to the Tridentine books) and the position of the priest vis-à-vis the altar and congregation are two separate issues, which are often conflated.
Post a Comment