Translate

Saturday, December 7, 2019

JUST WHAT CAN WE LICITLY GET AWAY WITH IN “RE-ENCHANTING” THE DEFORMED ASPECTS OF THE REFORMED MASS?


Praytell loves calling the Extraordinary Form Mass the unreformed Mass. But the Ordinary Form Mass has experienced some additional reforms and more might come even if, as progressives like, it has to take place from the grassroots level. Then we could call the reformed Mass as it is mostly celebrated the unreformed Mass too when others reform it for the better.

What can we licitly do? Fr. Fox and John Nolan have a give and take and I like what John Nolan will experience on Sunday in London.

In addition to what John Nolan will experience, couldn’t the priest and ministers also include in their procession to the altar the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar whilst the processional hymn is chanted or even the longer, traditional form of the Introit. What would be wrong with that? Absolutely nothing!

——-

Blogger Fr Martin Fox said...
John Nolan:

If more elements of the older tradition find their way into the ordinary form of the Mass and sacraments and other rituals, I will be very happy. But I grew up in a time when so many priests took it upon themselves to re-work the the rubrics as they saw fit. I do not want to emulate them. So I await these things coming down a more licit path.
December 5, 2019 at 1:16 PM
 Delete
Blogger John Nolan said...
Fr Fox

That's understandable, but you will be waiting a long time. 'Elements of the older tradition' won't mysteriously find their way into the Novus Ordo; they have to be put there as a result of choice, and choice is almost a defining feature of Paul VI's Mass.

The Solemn Mass I shall attend tomorrow will be in the new Rite, but, as on every Sunday, will take the following form. All the choices are entirely licit.
a) It is sung in Latin, with the traditional orientation (ad apsidem). The three Scripture readings and the Bidding Prayers are in English.
b) The celebrant is assisted by two sacred ministers who take the roles of deacon and 'subdeacon'.
c) The Mass is preceded by the Asperges in its older form, with the traditional versicles, responses and oratio.
d) The first option for the Penitential Act is invariably used. Although the opening and concluding rites are at the chair, the sedilia are arranged traditionally (not in front of the altar or tabernacle, and not facing the people).
e) The Gregorian Propers from the 1974 Graduale Romanum (Introit, Gradual, Alleluia, Communio) are used.
f) The Roman Canon is invariably used, recited audibly and following the Novus Ordo rubrics.
g) There is a simple chant setting of the Agnus Dei at the Fraction; the polyphonic Agnus is sung during the people's Communion.
h) Communion is kneeling at the rail, in one kind only.
i) There is a recessional hymn, but the congregation 'say or sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them'. This includes the responses, the Confiteor, the Credo and the Pater Noster.

The first reading is done by a lay person, but there are no EMHC and service at the altar is reserved to males.

In a sense, the most traditional element in this form of Mass is the fact that although the Propers change, the Ordinary by and large does not.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

If you follow the, "It's not forbidden therefore it is allowed" logic, then you can add, insert, stick in, or borrow what you want for the Mass.

Not a good idea.

Fr Martin Fox said...

John:

I didn't see this list on the original thread when you posted it. But picking up the thread of that prior conversation, I would point out that all these items, save perhaps the last, is entirely permitted in the Ordinary Form (and I am in favor of all of them, and in my parish, we do a lot of them now and I'd like to get to the rest). So these would not be examples of including elements of the liturgy pre-1962 (or 1955) into the new liturgical forms.

The possible exception would distributing Holy Communion at the rail to kneeling penitents -- which, again, I am entirely in favor of. But the rubrics do specify that in the U.S., the norm is standing. And, yes, if someone kneels that person is not to be refused. But I don't see how a pastor, who is docile to the norms set by the bishop, gets to having the normal way of distributing Holy Communion at an altar rail in the Ordinary Form.

As far as other ways the O.F. could be enriched by tradition, our genial host has many times given a list, to which I would refer. Insofar as a priest might include some older prayers as personal devotion, I see no problem. Birettas and maniples and the old form of incensation? I see no problem. As far as I can see, the intercessions can be omitted, at least some of the time. But take for example the manner of proclaiming the Scriptures in the traditional Mass; I don't see any way to import that. I could go on, but I'll stop there.

John Nolan said...

Not London, but Oxford (Oratory Church of St Aloysius).

Anonymous, as usual, is off-target. The options chosen are all expressly authorized with the exception of the older form of the Asperges, which takes place before the Mass starts, with the priest vested in a cope. It does not replace the penitential act (the newer sprinkling rite does, and unlike the older rite is actually part of the Mass, though rarely used).

Of course, the older Asperges does replace the entrance procession, and the Introit is sung after it. However, it can be argued that the Mass only begins when the celebrant sings 'In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti'.

'It's not forbidden therefore it is allowed' is a good maxim for what constitutes rights in a free society, but liturgy is essentially prescriptive, not proscriptive. The progressive maxim 'it's forbidden, but we'll do it anyway' is unfortunately still alive and kicking.

John Nolan said...

Fr Fox

The English and Welsh bishops also say that the 'norm' is to receive standing, but I take this as descriptive of what obtains in most parishes, which do not have rails. Cardinal Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster, ruled that in his archdiocese new rails were not to be installed, but churches which already have them continue to use them. No bishop would be so tactless as to try to order a congregation used to receive kneeling to desist from doing so.

I have never attended an OF Mass where the Scriptures were not proclaimed facing the people; this includes some where they were sung in Latin! However, some years ago I attended an EF Solemn Mass where the Epistle and Gospel were sung at the ambo.

TJM said...

John Nolan,

Does the Archbishop’s prohibition on altar rails apply only to newly constructed churches or would it also apply to pre-Vatican Ii sanctuaries which were ransacked following the Council?

John Nolan said...

TJM

This was some years ago, but as I recall he was against restoration of rails where they had been removed. Quite what his rationale was is not clear, and in any case his writ does not run outside the Westminster archdiocese, which is geographically a small area.

However, in his own cathedral, he (or his administrator) allows the deployment of EMHC in a way that is clearly illicit, so I would question his right to lay the law down concerning church furniture, or the reception of Holy Communion.

TJM said...

John Nolan,

He is just nuts, but certainly not alone