As I have stated over and over and over again, I love both forms of the Roman Missal. The Modern Form, euphemistically called the Bugnini Mass, while needing a good reform to make sure that it is in more continuity with the 1962 Missal, in terms of reverence, rubrics and mysticism, is fine when celebrated properly, with the propers and with humanity and divinity. It has too many options though that contributes to the clericalism built into the Mass and added to the Mass, the added ones completely unnecessary.
The 1962 Roman Missal has its own built-in clericalism too. Two that stand out concern who reads the Scriptures and the priest doing all parts of the Mass in a spoken fashion while these are also being chanted by the schola and laity. For example, even though the schola chants the introit, offertory and communion antiphons, the priest still says these. Ridiculous!
My other complaint is about the Sacred Scriptures.Pope Benedict gave permission for the Scriptures to be read in the vernacular. As far as I can tell, this permission means that these can be read in the vernacular at the normal time that they are read in Latin, which means that the priest does not need to read or chant these in Latin then followed by the vernacular or to have simultaneous renderings.
At Sacred Heart Church in Savannah, the custom has developed that a lector, a layman, reads the Epistle from the ambo in English simultaneously as the Celebrant is reading it quietly at the altar in Latin—That makes no sense whatsoever!
And get this, the custom there is for the priest also to read the Gospel quietly in Latin as the same layman reads the Gospel in English. Personally, I think that that is illicit. But sense its the TLM, no one cares about that.
On Passion/Palm Sunday, I got radical. I told everyone that I would read/chant the Gospels, the one associated with the blessing of the palms and then the one for the Passion Gospel in English and from the very fine 1964 altar missal we have, which provides the readings in English.
In fact, I chanted both Gospels in English, except for the Passion I read the parts not associated with the very words of Jesus but chanted the words of Jesus. It was very long for me but God gave my voice the grace to remain strong throughout, with both the spoken and chanted parts and the chanted parts in tune.
I personally think that while still using the 1962 Roman Missal, not the 1964, that the Scriptures be read in the vernacular and that the Collect, Secret and Post Communion Prayers should have the option of the vernacular and that the Secret should be chanted/spoken aloud.
At Sacred Heart in Savannah, we also have the priest and laity chant in Latin the entire Pater Noster together.
11 comments:
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/
Hope from France1
The 1962 Missal still beats the Novus Bogus hands down. The Novus Bogus is the “New Coke” on steroids
But for Vat II, these redundancies would have petered out by now -- organically.
Quote of the Day: MT Suit and the All Highest K are in denial!
"The TLM order that has been entrusted with my parish cannot ordain new priests fast enough to keep up with the requests from bishops to take over closed churches for parishoners who have asked for a Latin Mass. Wherever they are sent, the once-closed churches have filled pews several times, every Sunday. It’s a beautiful thing to see and hear, especially all the newly initiated young singles, couples and families."
Now I will rant about the readings being in English and/or Latin. I had a Missal, so it did not matter, at all, if it was read in Latin but for the folks who cannot read a Missal, for a Low Mass, they should be read in the vernacular. For a sung Mass they should be sung in Latin.
"For example, even though the schola chants the introit, offertory and communion antiphons, the priest still says these. Ridiculous!"
But isn't this practically the same as what many of the laity do? A layman who neither takes part in the chanting of the Introit nor listens carefully to each syllable as it's pronounced by the choir can still prayerfully "participate" in the chant by reading its text from his missal.
This is arguably MORE fitting in the case of the priest, since he doesn't even have a chance to listen carefully to the Introit or join the choir--he's busy with the prayers at the foot of the altar. The same applies to the Offertory and Communion chants.
If it were up to me, the "duplications" wouldn't be required (and in some cases, like the Gloria and Credo, it makes the most sense for the priest to chant with the choir), but neither would they be forbidden.
Go back to the 1965 revision of the rubrics and all that Vatican II called for would be accomplished.
Andrew, the problem that needs discounting, as I see it, is that the choir/schola’s singing is superfluous to what the priest is doing and often out-of-sinc. For example, often the schola finishes the Introit while I and other are still doing the PATFOTA. They go forward with the Kyrie, and often I’m incensing the altar as they are chanting the Kyrie, nonetheless, after I incense the altar, I go and read quietly the Introit, I say with a server, the Kyrie, although the schola is singing it and almost finished. They do have to wait for me to intone the Gloria when sung, but I could jump ahead saying it and then sit down while they complete it. The same is true with the Agnus, I say it and continue with the prayers that follow as the choir is singing it. There are several quiet prayers that I offer, but by the time the choir finishes the Agnus Dei, I am finished with all those prayers and go directly to my Dominum Non… three fold, and my Communion. Then I turn with a Host from the ciborium for the laity’s three fold Lord I am not worthy and their communion.
Anthony - But, what was called for and authorized/approved by the Holy Father did not end with the last session of Vatican Two.
I agree with TJM. The practical availability of the Missal and it’s basic Latin/English has allowed me to attend Mass and benefit from it in several vernaculars. The sychronisation of the schola and the Priest isn’t a problem because the schola is providing all sorts of musical and melismatic presentations of the prayer. I can read, or recite, a passage, e.g. the Credo, however I wish and it may or may not be in verbal lockstep with the Schola or the priest. As far as the readings go, there is the option to read the variable parts before the homily. This all brings everyone together rather than separating them, by having the languages concurrent, if not synchronised.
It appears to be the case, Father, that you are suffering from terminal liturgy. How you caught this disease in the first place is a worry.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
But what was authorized/approved by Pope Paul went beyond Vatican II and was often contrary to it. Opposition to the old Mass is often couched in terms that those who want it are opposed to Vatican II. This simply is not true. One can accept Vatican II fully and still be opposed to the new Mass and prefer the old. For the sake of honesty this needs to be admitted. Will you admit it?
Post a Comment