This past week, this poor, old, feeble and senile priest celebrated two Funeral Masses.
The first was dignified and reverent for a Post-Vatican II Mass. But none of the “Mass of the Dead” Propers were chanted. Instead, “Here I am Lord” was chosen for the Entrance Chant. The Offertory was “Be Not Afraid”, the Communion song was “I am the Bread of Life” and the Recessional was “On Eagles’ Wings”.
Those hymns and others like them are the most frequently chosen hymns to replace the propers of the Mass of the Dead and none of them pray for the Faithful Departed.
The second Funeral I celebrated in my geriatric condition, was a true Requiem in the Post-Vatican II Form. Since the body was not present, there was no “final commendation” as no catafalque was used as a symbol for the body (although I don’t think this is prohibited in the Modern Mass).
As you can see from the photos of the “handout” below, the Propers were chanted in Latin.
The Readings were from the choices from the Lectionary for a Funeral Mass. Between the Old Testament and Epistle Reading, the Gradual was chanted rather than a Responsorial Psalm. The Alleluia verse before the Gospel was in Latin as well. The Readings were read from the ambo by a lector and the Gospel by the priest of course, no deacon was present.
The Sanctus and Agnus Dei were in Latin. Everything else, including all the priestly parts of the Mass, was in English.
The Mass was ad orientem.
The Roman Canon in an audible voice in English was the Eucharist Prayer.
Violet vestments were used.
The biggest institutional abuse of the Mass, Requiem or not, is the allowance of the substitution of the Propers of a given Mass with a “similar” type hymn or anthem. That is not the case with the TLM, Low or High!
Simply revising the GIRM in terms of substituting something else for the official propers of the Post-Vatican II Mass would go a long way in reforming this Mass very much in need of an official reform of the Missal.
While both Funeral Masses were by the missal, the second one truly was a Requeim while the first one was a concoction, but nicely sung and celebrated.
25 comments:
Replacing the propers with a hymn is not an abuse, it’s a permitted alternative!
Institutional abuse. Almost every abuse is permitted in the post Vatican II Mass. It is in need of a drastic reform!
Can a permitted option simultaneously be an abuse?
Nick
By definition, no because it doesn’t contravene liturgical law!
The DDW has appeared liturgical adaptations for inculturation of the Mexican liturgy in one diocese as an experiment…
https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/vatican-oks-indigenous-liturgical
Just because you can (substitute the propers for a hymn) doesn't mean you should.
*approved
Just because you can (substitute the propers for a hymn) doesn't mean you should.
Maybe depending on context and resources. But the option is there for where it’s not possible or appropriate.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/amp/news/267219/vatican-liturgist-urges-us-church-to-follow-pope-francis-guidelines-on-mass
See Roche’s comments on implementation of TC.
In this document Pope Francis addressed head-on the greatest liturgical problem in the Church which is the abuse of the Post-Vatican II Mass. He explicitly calls it out. He offers ways to overcome that abuse, implying reading the black and doing the red and thus implicitly praises Fr.Z! I have written posts on that liturgical document in the past. But as soon as it was released it was forgotten by everyone including Pope Francis and Cardinal Roche as no one ever spoke about it until now. And there was no crackdown on bishops who do not manage the priests who celebrate Mass in their dioceses and look the other way with the most egregious abuses. Just think of Cardinal Cupich that allows the most outrageous abuses during Mass at St. Sabina’s in Chicago. Not only are their silly abuses but the pastor makes up his own Eucharistic prayers (promoted in the 1970’s by the way) and changes the words of consecration as well rendering the Mass not only illicit but invalid.
Father McDonald,
I guess the majority of Anglicans are not leftwing loons. Please read this:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/10/church-england-splits-losing-40-million-members-as/
Agree St Sabina’s probably needs to be reigned in but it’s the bishop’s role to moderate the liturgy in his diocese. I suspect these kind of things may be addressed more robustly under Leo but through the proper channels ie via intervention by the DDW rather than public rebukes. By all accounts Leo addressed such issues calmly and discreetly with his own priests when he observed things untoward during his visits in chile, listening to whether the practices were the norm, how they developed and their reasoning before discussing why they weren’t appropriate and agreeing how to bring them back in line gradually in a pastoral manner.
Paris also had a “liberal / progressive “ church that was allowed for many years to deviate from the norm until a few years ago, but even then a compromise was reached following kickback. Maybe each major diocese should have a progressive parish but not to the extent that they make up their own Eucharistic prayers. As a teenager and young adult I used to attend a monthly “youth mass” called Katemavik (Eskimo for gathering space) where we all sat on the floor around the coffee table altar with priests just wearing albs/stoles and there were things done that would not be acceptable today. However, I felt everyone was very engaged / committed and respectful in their own way and it certainly felt more meaningful / personal than your average parish mass which certainly helped cement my faith.
I like chant and liturgical decorum being a regular attendee at Westminster Cathedral but I also value my parish mass which has less musical resources and the young altar servers could do with more training because the priest is personable / caring and a good preacher, doing the best he can with what he’s got. The Easter Tridium was lovely (even though he used a monstrance for the Maundy Thursday procession!),
100%.
What's become evident is that despite all the options, everyone's likes cannot be met simultaneously. I would think that is the cause of the balkanization that's prevalent in the RC NO church.
The non-acceptance of the liturgical reform, as also a superficial understanding of it, distracts us from the obligation of finding responses to the question that I come back to repeating: how can we grow in our capacity tolive in full the liturgical action? How do we continue to let ourselves be amazed at what happens in the celebration under our very eyes? We are in need of a serious and dynamic liturgical formation.
In visiting Christian communities, I have noticed that their way of living the liturgical celebration is conditioned — for better or, unfortunately, for worse — by the way in which their pastor presides in the assembly. We could say that there are different “models” of presiding. Here is a possible list of approaches, which even though opposed to each other, characterize a way of presiding that is certainly inadequate: rigid austerity or an exasperating creativity, a spiritualizing mysticism or a practical functionalism, a rushed briskness or an overemphasized slowness, a sloppy carelessness or an excessive finickiness, a superabundant friendliness or priestly impassibility. Granted the wide range of these examples, I think that the inadequacy of these models of presiding have a common root: a heightened personalism of the celebrating style which at times expresses a poorly concealed mania to be the centre of attention. Often this becomes more evident when our celebrations are transmitted over the air or online, something not always opportune and that needs further reflection. Be sure you understand me: these are not the most widespread behaviours, but still, not infrequently assemblies suffer from being thus abused.
Francis
What's become evident is that despite all the options, everyone's likes cannot be met simultaneously. I would think that is the cause of the balkanization that's prevalent in the RC NO church.
——-
I know what you mean but there’s always been variations in parish ethos / style of worship, with parish shopping going on to some extent. Obviously this is more possible in urban areas with lots of nearby options than rural areas where you’re stuck with your local church.
Ratzinger also discusses how this has always being the case as well as being entirely natural and appropriate, with french cathedral worship differing form rural Bavarian or the Italian suburbs etc etc.
The question is how to do so in modern times to allow some diversity without causing division.
The northeast USA had hundreds of ethic parishes prior to Vatican II. On the same block there would be Italian, Polish or German parishes. Each more beautiful than the next! The Mass, though was the TLM, thus primarily Latin and Greek. The homily the vernacular of that ethnic parish. Popular Devotions and piety certainly differed . Some parishes, given their resources, had splendid choirs and organists and could do complicated Chant, polyphony and classical meters. Others had horrible choirs. But in the sung Mass propers were chanted in simple of more complex Gregorian chant, by a choir or cantor. There was basic ritual and lingua uniformity although quality may have differed.
Also, in this country, at a Low Sunday Mass, four vernacular hymns could be sung, at the Entrance, Offertory, Communion and recessional. These hymns varied by nationality and were meant more for public popular devotions. However the propers were still said by the priest.
…except in Germany where they had an indult to use German folk settings.
For the low Mass I presume.
No it was for sung mass using folk melodies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Singmesse
Exactly the four hymn sandwich originated with the low mass and is nothing new.
I now do recall this and I remember Pope Benedict spoke about it and that those parishes there and elsewhere who experienced this kind of renewal with the TLM had an even harder time with the post Vatican II Mass and its aberrant celebrations. But one thing must be kept in mind, in the TLM Mass, there is a disconnect between what the choir is doing and what the priest is doing. All the parts sung by the choir, the priest says and not in continuity with the choir. Thus the Mass is still entirely in Latin, even for the parts, but with the priest quietly saying these parts, like the Gloria, Credo, Sanctus and Agnus Dei even when the choir is singing these and the priest is not in sync with the choir. So, and I think this needed cleaning up btw, two separate Masses are going on at the same time, one that is of the priest and the other of the choir. The choir’s part is window dressing and I see no reason why their parts could not have been in the vernacular, but never substituting the propers with something otherwise.
I don’t think that was the case with the singmesse, there was even permissions to use adaptations for the ordinary eg Gloria etc. By all accounts it was an early version of the dialogue mass.
Post a Comment