Since the Universal Prayer is either copied from some liturgical aid or composed by a Liturgy committee or someone on the paid staff or by the priest, you never know what you will get!
Thus these should be banned as the UP can be inane, politically or religiously preachy or just plain stupid if not herectical.
And don’t get me started when the priest says, “what else shall we pray for” thus inviting anyone to put their two cents in, like, “for my philandering husband, that he may be converted...let us pray to the Lord.”
The Roman Canon has all the necessary UPs any Mass could ever hope to have and these are not inane, politically or religiously preachy or just plain stupid.
In the Extraordinary Form the priest himself could conceivably conclude his homily, which isn’t a part of the Mass, just tolerated, with intercessions. Then he puts the maniple and chasable back on for the rest of the Mass. I’ll try that at my next EF Cathedral Mass!
24 comments:
It needs them like a dead fish needs a bicycle.
A lot of the innovations in the Novus Ordo cannot be justified by Sacrosanctum Concilium, but the Prayers of the Faithful or (as they're often called here in the UK) the 'Bidding Prayers' are the result of that Vatican 2 document. But that document, like other V-2 docs, contains some pretty dumb statements. One of those is this: other elements which have suffered injury through accidents of history are now to be restored to the vigor which they had in the days of the holy Fathers (SC 50). There was apparently no appreciation that some 'elements' were dropped or (in the case of these Prayers) remained only on Good Friday because of the lived experience of the church. There are no 'accidents' when it comes to liturgy.
However, I think they can be legitimately be omitted according to The General Instruction of the Roman Missal. GIRM 69 reads: It is desirable that there usually be such a form of prayer in Masses celebrated with the people, so that petitions may be offered for holy Church...but when, I ask you, have you ever seen a Mass that's attended by 'the people'? Whenever I've been in church, I've only seen a small proportion of 'the people'. And anyway, just because something's 'desirable' doesn't mean it's going to happen, does it?
(And GRIM also says the priest shouldn't leave the sanctuary at the sign of peace, and that happens all over the place!)
"Since the Universal Prayer is either copied from some liturgical aid or composed by a Liturgy committee or someone on the paid staff or by the priest, you never know what you will get!"
"...or by the priest..."
Just because you're a sloppy writer - "1. My grammar will not improve 2. I will continue to be very liberated by this" - doesn't mean your brother priests are. In fact, some number have written books, won journalism awards, are noted linguists and Latinists, and do a very fine job writing the Universal Prayers.
Seems like you like clerical cliques and academics, who by the way, are a minority in the Church. Send us some of your exquisite intercessions for us to critique. I'll make of post just for them!
The idea of the liturgical movement, like so many of them, of restoring the long lost practice in the Roman Mass of the general intercessions was false. There never were such intercessions at Rome because the Roman Canon itself contained them. But, of course, once alien EPs were introduced to remedy this and other "defects" of the Roman liturgy that the "experts" came up with, these GEs were contrived not to emulate Byzantine liturgy but to have more "active participation," that fabricated nemesis of the pre-V2 liturgy for its very demise.
"Seems like you like clerical cliques and academics,..." (Clerics and academics have always been a "minority in the Church." I don't know why you think that needs to be pointed out.)
I do appreciate the scholarly "cliques and academics" that have included the likes of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Pope John Paul II, Fr. Raymond Brown, SS.
Beyond the clerical circle, I am very much moved by the writings of people like Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks, Rene Girard, and Presbyterian minister Timothy Keller.
If you want to critique the intercessions I write, you are welcome to come to any of the weekend masses celebrated here at St. Peter the Apostle and hear them.
Dump them because "progressives" use them to insert their liberal agenda.
FRMJK, I didn't know Aquinas, John Paul II and Brown wrote intercessions. Fr. Brown taught me scripture at St. Mary's in Baltimore. Great scholar and churchman but I doubt his intercessions would be worthy of anything except maybe a biblical exegesis which the intercessions aren't of course, any more than a political, moral or religious sermon.
The others you mention, I would hardly think they write intercessions for the Mass, but please enlighten me if you have used theirs!
I could care less about critiquing your intercessions but those who read this blog would have a field day with them. Are then any of my blog readers in your parish. If so I will gladly call them and ask them to record your intercessions and send them to me. But you should tell them if you are plagiarizing them from Rabbi Sacks or Presbyterian minister Keller, not to mention Fr. Raymond Brown or St. Thomas Aquinas.
The intercessions (known as 'bidding prayers' in England after the intercessions in the Use of Sarum) were introduced in 1965. They ended (and still do) with asking for Our Lady's intercession, and the congregation recite together the Hail Mary. This was despite objections from Rome, but was justified by the bishops on the grounds that the vernacular prayers after Mass, which included a three-fold repetition of the Hail Mary, had recently been suppressed; also it had been the custom of Sarum.
The trouble with the intercessions is that too many of them are based on the previous night's TV news, which is somewhat bathetic considering we have just sung 'et vitam venturi saeculi'. Depending on who has written them, they can be conventionally platitudinous when relating to social issues. Praying for the leadership of the Church (pope and bishops) merely anticipates what is in the Eucharistic Prayer. The problem of repetition is particularly acute at papal masses. The deacon sings the intercession in Latin. A lay person reiterates it in his or her native language. The deacon then sings 'Dominum deprecemur' and everyone responds 'Te rogamus, audi nos.' Repeat ad nauseam.
In the Extraordinary form Sunday Mass the priest removes his maniple and places it on the missal, indicating that the Mass is interrupted at this point. Mounting the pulpit, he reads the Epistle and Gospel in the vernacular. Then he reads the parish notices, which include banns of marriage and intercessions for those who are ill or recently deceased. He then preaches the sermon, which will avoid mentioning Jesus by name too often so that he and the clergy in choir are not constantly doffing their birettas. The Mass resumes with the Credo and is not interrupted thereafter.
Those who created the Novus Ordo, no doubt invoking a theory of liturgy which was fashionable at the time but has since been debunked, failed to make a distinction between what is liturgical and what is not. To sing the seasonal Marian antiphon with its versicle, response and prayer after a Sung Mass is a laudable custom, but is not part of the liturgy.
The Collect is liturgical prayer; extempore intercessions are not. The homily is no more part of the liturgy than are the parish notices (whose reading after the Postcommunion is one of the odder features of the Novus Ordo). Saying that they are does not make them so.
"FRMJK, I didn't know Aquinas, John Paul II and Brown wrote intercessions."
No, but they are academics and among the "clerical clique" you mentioned.
"I could care less about critiquing your intercessions but those who read this blog would have a field day with them."
They, too, are welcome to attend any weekend mass here at St. Peter the Apostle and submit their comments, in writing, signed, about the intercessions.
"The homily is no more part of the liturgy than are the parish notices (whose reading after the Postcommunion is one of the odder features of the Novus Ordo). Saying that they are does not make them so."
The homily is, indeed, part of the liturgy.
GIRM Chapter II: The Structure of the Mass, Its Elements, and Its Parts
65. The Homily is part of the Liturgy and is highly recommended,[62] for it is necessary for the nurturing of the Christian life. It should be an explanation of some aspect of the readings from Sacred Scripture or of another text from the Ordinary or the Proper of the Mass of the day and should take into account both the mystery being celebrated and the particular needs ofthe listeners.
Footnote 62: SC "52. By means of the homily the mysteries of the faith and the guiding principles of the Christian life are expounded from the sacred text, during the course of the liturgical year; the homily, therefore, is to be highly esteemed as part of the liturgy itself; in fact, at those Masses which are celebrated with the assistance of the people on Sundays and feasts of obligation, it should not be omitted except for a serious reason."
CIC 767/1 "Among the forms of preaching, the homily, which is part of the liturgy itself and is reserved to a priest or deacon, is preeminent; in the homily the mysteries of faith and the norms of Christian life are to be explained from the sacred text during the course of the liturgical year."
My reading of the GIRM is that they are, as noted, "desirable," but not required. We usually have them, but at some daily Masses, when time is pressing, I will omit the homily (certainly not required on weekdays) and the petitions and go straight to the altar. On those occasions, I will mention the stipended intention for the Mass for all to pray for if they wish. In my judgment, this is a better way to save time in the Mass (and it saves a fair amount) than overusing Eucharistic Prayer II, or rushing through the rest of the Mass. Plus, it gives people more silence, which is sorely needed.
The new rite of Vespers also has intercessions. A few years ago I was one of two cantors at Latin Vespers in their new form. One of the intercessions mentioned those who suffered discrimination on account of their gender. Very right on! However, whereas in English it was clear what the meaning was, whoever put it into Latin used the noun 'genus', which has so many different meanings that it made the whole thing a nonsense. Had he used 'sexus' it would have been clearer. Not that the ancients had much truck with modern feminism.
MJK
I too can quote the GIRM and SC, but it merely reinforces my point that the term 'liturgy' was defined by the reformers in a way which included previously non-liturgical elements. A homily preached during Mass or Vespers is no more liturgical than one preached outside them. We used to have a Sunday afternoon service of 'Rosary, Sermon and Benediction'. None of its components was ever recognized as being liturgical.
Non-liturgical elements cannot be transmogrified into liturgical ones by declarations, however 'authoritative'. That's not the way liturgy should be treated; in short, it's a 20th century conceit which is accepted uncritically by those whose whose knowledge of the liturgy and its development doesn't go back very far.
JN - Many things that you and I would agree are liturgical were, at one time, non-liturgical.
Were bowing and genuflecting ALWAYS part of the liturgy? I suspect not.
Were the colors green, white, red, violet, and rose ALWAYS part of the liturgy? I suspect not.
When was the number of candles for various celebrations first prescribed? Or the percent of beeswax in said candles? Or the number of altar cloths?
Regarding the PATFOTA, Michael Davies writes, "The prayers said at the foot of the altar are in their present form the latest part of all. They developed out of medieval private preparations and were not formally appointed in their present state before the Missal of Pius V [1570]."
The notion that "Non-liturgical elements cannot be transmogrified into liturgical ones by declarations, however 'authoritative'." is shown to be false by the history of the development and evolution of the mass.
Davies cites Canon George Smith, "Throughout the history of the development of the sacramental liturgy, the tendency has always been towards growth, additions and accretions, the effort to obtain a fuller, more perfect, more clearly significant symbolism." G. Smith, Editor, The Teaching of the Catholic Church (London: Bums & Oates, 1956), p. 1056.
Kavanaugh,
Are you sure you want to cite Canon George Smith? It suggests that the EF is the culmination of that effort. The OF clearly is not inasmuch as it is a hodge podge of options which makes the celebrant the master of the liturgy, not its servant.
I was taught that, in the ancient Church, the parish deacons had the responsibility of designing (within limits) and chanting the bidding prayers. The custom of having bidding prayers fell out of use because permanent parish deacons came to be, for a time in the Church, no more. Now that we have deacons in many parishes, someday maybe deacons can again take over the designing and chanting of the bidding prayers. The bidding prayers themselves were required to have a fixed formula: for the Church, for the civil authorities, for the local parish, etc. The deacons were restricted somewhat in what they could pray for. And, the solemn chanting of these prayers by the deacons lent a beautiful formality to that part of the Mass.
MJK
Of course the liturgy evolved and developed over the course of 2000 years; that's not the point at issue. It was not a planned progress; there was no Sacred Congregation of Rites until 1588 to issue declarations, and before the advent of printed books growth, additions, accretions (and in some cases deletions) could only occur at a very gradual pace.
What I am questioning is why the sermon, which is not part of the liturgy itself when Mass is celebrated according to the 1962 Missal (or indeed earlier ones) is considered to be so when celebrated according the Missal of 1970. There seems to be an assumption that everything the priest does or says, and anything the people do or say, is integral to the liturgy, and hence 'liturgical'. So singing a non-liturgical hymn text is 'liturgical', the priest's extempore remarks are 'liturgical', shaking hands with one's neighbour is 'liturgical' and so on.
Even queueing up to receive Communion is 'liturgized' by referring to it as a 'procession' which is absurd.
So we have two options. Either the sermon in the older Rite is part of the liturgy, but we didn't realize it until now, or the definition of what is liturgical and what is not has been changed. The latter would seem by far the most likely explanation. It is therefore illogical to attempt to justify a novelty by referencing liturgical tradition.
John Nolan,
I remember when the sermon was considered so "non-liturgical" that some men in the parish went outside to smoke a cigarette until the sermon was over.
Did that ever occur in England?
I prefer the Great Litany of the Byzantine Rite - prays for that which is most needed without danger of sentimental or heterodox formulations.
TMJ: "I remember when the sermon was considered so "non-liturgical" that some men in the parish went outside to smoke a cigarette until the sermon was over."
Especially in football season. And after a few minutes of healthy "Sunday morning quarter-backing" they may have been better prepared for the resumption of the Mass, than they might be after one of today's frequently morally unhealthy Novus Ordo sermons.
Henry,
Bingo!!!
TJM
I remember when I was eight acting as boat boy for the sixteen-year-old thurifer. We repaired to the sacristy after the Gospel (to change the charcoal) and were not required until the Offertory. He had time to smoke three cigarettes, and I had the benefit of missing the sermon.
John Nolan,
Such a nice memory!!!!
Post a Comment