Marc makes a good point about the Mass becoming a private devotion for the priest in a serial form of multiple priests celebrating Mass at side altars not synchronized, at the same time:
When we went to the SSPX chapel, there were multiple masses every morning — sometimes 4 at the same time. I even served some of these masses.
It seemed really neat to me at the time. But with hindsight, I think this practice places an incorrect emphasis on what it is to be a priest. These masses are like personal acts of piety for the priest, which is somewhat antithetical to (what I think is) a better understanding of priesthood as a man set apart for his community.
Rorate Caeli has an article on the organic development of the Mass rather than its replacement . You can read the full article HERE.
But here is an excerpt as it pertains to my comments below it:
The previous magisterium: organic development, not replacement
The principle of the “organic development” of the liturgy has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the recent magisterium.
3.1 Pius XII – Mediator Dei (1947): “The liturgy cannot be considered either as a museum to be preserved or as a laboratory for experimentation. It grows like a tree from the root of the apostolic faith.”
3.2 John XXIII – Rubricarum Instructum (1960): “We confirm and order that what Tradition has received and handed down with veneration be kept intact.”
3.3 Benedict XVI – Letter Accompanying Summorum Pontificum (2007): “What was sacred for previous generations remains sacred and great for us too, and cannot suddenly be forbidden or judged harmful.”
All previous reforms, up to that of John XXIII, are justified not by a break but by continuity: what is adapted, simplified, or restored always remains within the development of Tradition. No Pope has ever claimed that the reform abolished the theological validity of the previous form.
My astute most humble comments concerning Marc’s comment and the Rorate Caeli article:
The pre-Vatican II celebration of the TLM was criticized by reformers who felt that it was too priest-centered, too much of just his private devotion and celebration and the congregation was left out of the picture, apart from being required to be at Mass and hear it. It was a passive kind of participation.
The reform of the Mass by Consilium, that much maligned committee headed by Bishop Bugnini, and then their concoction of a reformed Mass promulgated by St. Paul VI, addressed the passive nature of participation of the Congregation, went back to early Church sources of how the Mass was celebrated, and then purged the Mass of almost all the private prayers of the priest and almost any aspect that made it appear to be the priests’ celebration alone or worse his own private prayers and devotion!
I happen to believe, in what is my most humble opinion, that they went to far and did not respect the organic development of the TLM and allow for growth of it in terms of active rather than just passive participation of the laity.
There are ways to address the congregation’s complete submersion into the Mass by actively singing and saying those parts previously offered only by the altar boys and/or choir on their behalf. While maintaining some Latin for the quiet prayers of the priest and the Roman Canon, the vernacular could have assisted the laity in singing the parts of the Mass linked to them.
The TLM could have been left in tact with only the following organic revisions.
The most important to me is the revision of the Communion Rite for the priest and then the laity. In the 1962 Roman Missal, there is no ceremony for the laity to receive Holy Communion and in fact, the laity could be denied Holy Communion during Mass if the priest chose to do so. That was rare, but it could and did happen prior to Vatican II. Although, prior to Vatican II and even in the modern Mass communicants sometimes are given Holy Communion before Mass, if they can’t receive during Mass or after Mass. That is an aberration too, I think.
But let’s get back to the Communion Rite of the 1962 Missal. The priest after the Agnus Dei privately but partially out loud says the Dominus Non Sum Dignus, three times. Then he makes his Holy Communion by consuming the Consecrated Host and Precious Blood, which is necessary to ratify the Sacrificial aspect of the Mass.
Then, somehow in an organic way, but not to be found in the 1962 Missal, is the communion of the faithful. Prior to Vatican II, the Confiteor was once again recited outloud by a server or other minister, then the priest would open the tabernacle, take out the ciborium, genuflect, take a small host from the ciborium, turn to the congregation and say “Ecce Agnus Dei…” and then lead the three-fold “Dominum Non Sum Dignus again, but this time for the laity. Then Holy Communion is given to the servers and the rest of the faithful. (I do not know how this part of the liturgy for the faithful’s Holy Communion came about or where it is to be found in an official book. It is not in the 1962 Roman Missal!
A proper organic development of the 1962’s Communion rite would simply be allowing the priest to continue with the full array of private prayers after or during the Agnus Dei, but not receiving Holy Communion, until he turns to the congregation or addresses the congregation in a Mass facing the nave, and states “Ecce Agnus Dei, even with the post-Vatican II addition, and then all together say the three—fold “Domini non sum Dignus…” The Host and the Chalice of Precious Blood is shown to the faithful, those just consecrated by the priest, with the fractured Host above the chalice of Precious Blood. Then the priest, using the full array of private prayers for his Holy Communion, needed for the ratification of the Sacrificial aspect of the Mass being celebrated, receives his Holy Communion and then distributes Holy Communion to the servers and the faithful present with Hosts consecrated at that particular Mass if possible and only going to the tabernacle in the case of need.
That’s an organic development, not a replacement!
19 comments:
One other aspect of the TLM which I think is wrong to do and it is done at Sacred Heart’s Mass in Savannah, is for the laity to be going to Confession while the Mass is in progress. That reinforces this anomaly that the Mass is Father’s Mass and the laity don’t have to assist him from beginning to the end. Going to Confession while the Mass is in progress is a liturgical abuse in my mind!
Correct me if wrong. But the Priest’s Communion marked the completion of the action of the Mass. It was only after the Sacrifice had been completed that the fruits of that Sacrifice were offered to the people. ( who incidentally, had been actively participating in the offering of the Sacrifice by their listening and uniting their prayers)
The modern reform still has the faithful receiving after the priest has. A horrible liturgical abuse in the 70’s and 80’s was for the priest to receive after the laity had as a sign of Sacred Meal hospitality!
The communion rite for outside of mass was grafted onto the the mass when more frequent communion became common during Pius XII’s time. Hence the repetition of the confetior etc.
Before the war, Westminster Cathedral only offered communion on the hour and half hour between 7.30 and 10am at the Blessed Sacrament Chapel. Communion was never distributed during mass itself. It was suggested that you receive communion before mass and then offer the mass in thanksgiving.
This is still allowed with Novus Ordo Masses, just rarely done (even more rarely than use of the required Communion paten/plate!)
Nick
Many agree. I have heard more than once the celebrant call for the confessions to end during Mass.
Disagree that the new rite was a completely new rite. It was a radical but organic development of the old missal after 400 years of ossification.
Birettas should be suppressed!
Medical headgear is an unnecessary accreditation and not noble simplicity! Also looks ridiculous, men should not wear headgear in church.
Leave poor Pope Leo alone! He loves his miters!
Both radical and organic? Hmm...
Nick
I'm pretty sure God directed priests to wear headgear during the ceremonies. As a result, historically, priests have worn headgear.
big benny,
I shudder to consider what you would think of our Eastern brethren's "medical headgear"--would the crown-like episcopal miters also count as ridiculous? At least you would have a consistent, ecumenical antipathy
Nick
Sorry my phone touchscreen playing up. I meant clerical headgear. I refer only to the Latin rite and don’t seek to impose my viewpoint on out eastern brethren. Mitres are traditional for bishops and I don’t object to that either, just an aversion to bitettas.
Where did god direct clerics to wear headgear out of interest?
Exodus 28:4
Big Benny,
You need to go and protect your English ladies from the third world savages taking over what was once known as Great Britain. Lady Thatcher was the last Man to run England now it is run by a bunch of powder puffs that I am sure you adore!
"Also looks ridiculous, men should not wear headgear in church"
"Mitres are traditional for bishops and I don’t object to that either"
Uh, okay.
As worked up as I get over crappy music and idiotic priests running the Mass like it's their nightly comedy show, this tic for "bitettas" is really something. Every grade of ordained cleric except the pope has this as part of his ecclesial dress--you could hardly miss them by the dozen at this last conclave--and has had for centuries, but let's go with "I think they look ridiculous, throw them out!"
Nick
Exodus 28:4
The old covenant was replaced. It no longer applies to christians
Calling any human a savage is totally unchristian. We are a country of peoples from various backgrounds, particularly due to our colonial history. Our diversity is a strength and something we are proud of.
Are there social issues and challenges? Yes, just like any country but they won’t be resolved by demonising people.
Post a Comment