A priest commenter on my blog wrote a comment that no one really likes the Bugnini Mass as it is presented in the modern Roman Missal. Everyone makes changes, from blabbing people to death during the Introductory Rite before introducing the Penitential Act, to manipulating words and gestures to suit what the priest thinks is better.
That’s the Bugnini Mass for you, everyone, from the left, right and middle, tries to improve it as no one seems to like a straightforward by the book Bugnini Mass.
So let me play that game too as it concerns the “Gathering Rite”, uhm, the “Introductory Act”.
First, no blabbing prior to the Penitential Act! Please, no blabbing, no secular greetings after the religious one, no blabbing please, no secular greetings. Say exactly what is in the Roman Missal to “introduce” the Penitential Act, no matter the option that will be chosen for it.
This is what is in the modern missal, use it and no other words!:
Priest: Brethren (brothers and sisters), let us acknowledge our sins, that we may prepare ourselves to celebrate the sacred mysteries.
But with that said, let me improve the Bugnini Mass’s Introductory Rite by eliminating the “introduction” to the Penitential Act.
After the Entrance Chant is concluded, the one in the Roman Gradual, the priest continues the Mass with the “Sign of the Cross and greeting”:
Priest: In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
All: Amen
Priest: The Lord be with you.
All: And with your Spirit
(Then immediately and without any words what so ever, nor any blabbing, the Penitential Act begins by all):
All: I confess to Almighty God….
Priest: May almighty God have mercy…
All: Amen
Then follows the Kyrie, Gloria and Collect.
Or:
Priest: Have mercy on us, O Lord.
All: For we have sinner against you.
Priest: Show us, O Lord, your mercy.
All: And grant us your salvation.
Priest: May Almighty God..
All: Amen.
Then follows the Kyrie, Gloria and Collect
Or, If a trope Kyrie is chosen, the Kyrie is moved to after all three tropes:
Priest/Deacon: Lord Jesus, You are Mighty God and Prince of Peace.
All: Amen.
P/D: Lord Jesus, you are Son of God and Son of Mary.
All: Amen.
P/D: Lord Jesus, you are Word made Flesh and Splendor of the Father.
All: Amen.
Priest: May Almighty God….
Then the Kyrie follows and the Gloria and Collect
I, in my most humble opinion, think this is the best improvement to the Bugnini Penitential Act, a tinkering that outdoes every other tinkering especially Bugnini’s tinkering with the TLM’s Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, no?
32 comments:
As an Easterner, I'm mystified by the tinkering and the perception that tinkering makes it more meaningful. The Liturgy should stand on its own, no narration/MC'ing, just follow what is provided faithfully. In addition to the penitential rite (and I find particularly awkward the flow when led by the deacon - like he finally gets to do something and is going to make the most of it - I dislike the....forgetting what you call it, the prayer of the people, maybe? That rite seems to give license to all forms of creativity, most of which strike me as purely sentimental. My impression, how I react, hopefully no one feels compelled to "set me straight". Why can't this rite simply follow the East's lead of having set petitions with a set response like "Lord have mercy!"?
The modern missal’s Universal Prayers as practiced are a disaster. The missal’s appendix has several for consideration and for the various seasons, but not mandated, more of a model. Fixed Litanies would be far better, but alas!
It is time to recognize that the Mass of Paul VI goes beyond what was mandated by Vatican II. Go back to the reformed missal of 1965 and be done with it.
In the place of "Brethren, let us acknowledge our sins...", the modern (post-Vatican II) Carthusian Missal has "Adiutórium nostrum in nómine Domini," with its response, "Qui fecit caelum et terram." (This happens to match the Tridentine Use.)
After the entrance and greeting at our 9:00 a.m. mass, I welcomed four young who were receiving their First Communion at that mass and their families.
After the opening prayer, I called forward the children who participate most Sundays in the "Sunday School" program we run for their benefit.
Did either of these constitute "blabbing people who death?" Hardly.
Did either of these constitute a "manipulation" or indicate that I don't "really like" the Mass of Pope Paul VI? No.
You get a big fat ZERO, for answering your own question wrong! Sheesh 🙄!
Why were they late that warrented their being welcomed
The questions I pose remains . . . unanswered....
Fr. Kavanaugh,
The Mass is a liturgy, not your personal conversation with the congregation. So yes, it does mean that you do not really like the Mass of Pope Paul VI because you do not follow it. If you want to greet someone personally, do it at the homily.
Amen! Excellent answer.
or better before Mass begins
David - They were not "late" as far as the mass was concerned. They were welcomed because they were making their First Communion. (This is not too complicated for you, is it?)
Anthony - The time for a Greeting is when, according to the rubrics, "The priest, extending his hands, GREETS the people." (This is not too complicated for you, is it?)
Anthony - The homily is an integral part of the mass, one part of the Liturgy of the Word. Also, I was not greeting them "personally." I was speaking in for the congregation and - get this - in Persona Christi, welcoming them for the first time to the altar of sacrifice.
Maybe in David and Anthony's world, when a guest or guests of particular note are present at, say, a dinner party, the host waits until the dessert course is being served to note their presence. Or maybe, when a guest artist is present to perform a piano concerto, the conductor waits until the first movement is complete before introducing the guest artist.
That's not how things work in the real world....
Fr. Kavanaugh,
Nice selective quotation. The full quote:
Then the Priest, extending his hands, greets the people, saying:
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and the love of God,
and the communion of the Holy Spirit
be with you all.
or
Grace to you and peace from God our Father
and the Lord Jesus Christ.
or
The Lord be with you.
The formula for the greeting is set by the liturgy and is not up to the whim of the celebrant. It is also a greeting addressed to the whole congregation and not just to a selected group within it. Nor are you speaking for the congregation, but as the celebrant acting, as you said, in persona Christi; you are addressing the whole congregation, all of them. And yes, the homily is an integral part of the Mass, but it is here that you have the freedom to speak in your own words. (This is not too complicated for you, is it?)
In a piano concerto, the conductor does not interrupt in the middle of the first movement to introduce the guest artist. That is not how things work in the real world. The Church has given you the place to speak personally to the congregation, the homily. Use it. The liturgy belongs to the Church, not to you; and the faithful have a right to celebrate as the Church has formulated it.
I wish that priests understood how disconcerting and disorienting it is to speak for several minutes after the initial greeting, before shifting gears to the Confiteor. This just happened at our local cathedral, where the associate paster was the celebrant and we were attending there because of travel considerations and time, as we usually attend a Latin Mass in the next county. The focus of the priest's fairly accented dialog was a group of women who had attended a retreat that weekend who were sitting en bloc at the front. The priest spoke of the retreat again at the homily, and again just before the final blessing.
The transition to the Confiteor was abrupt, causing me and perhaps some other parishioners to have difficulty maintaining focus in the transition. As I said earlier, it was disconcerting.
But at least there wasn't a Nativity play performed by the children during Mass as we had experienced in another parish a couple years ago. It was cute and the kids loved to be able to perform - it was just out of place.
Anthony - That which is not forbidden is allowed, no? That's why we see traddie priests wearing maniples in the NO (not forbidden, ergo allowed), resting forearms on the altar mensa during the words of consecration in the NO (not forbidden, ergo allowed), washing fingers after communion first with wine then water (not forbidden, ergo allowed), etc.
The greeting I offered is one of those listed. Ergo, you've no complaint.
Noting the presence of first communicants or a visiting dignitary or civil official in the congregation, introducing a visiting concelebrating priest, noting that the organist was taken ill at the last minute so no songs will be used during mass, these are hardly forbidden..... The rubrics do not forbid adding a particular greeting, ergo...
The church has given us the liturgy, but it has not so straightjacketed the liturgy that common courtesy or good sense or words intended to edify or inform the congregation can't be employed.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
What is prescribed is prescribed, and the words of the greeting is prescribed.
"However, the Priest will remember that he is the servant of the Sacred Liturgy and that he himself is not permitted, on his own initiative, to add, to remove, or to change anything in the celebration of Mass." (GIRM 24)
If common courtesy or good sense calls for the noting of the presence of certain persons, do it at the proper place, the homily. There is no compelling reason that this cannot be delayed until then.
In the East, Divine Liturgy is the work of the Lord. That work progresses without interruption until its conclusion, inclusive of the homily. Announcements are saved until after the final blessing and prior to the dismissal. Why? Because the liturgy isn't ours. We are simply its current caretakers. We set aside all earthly cares until such time that we anticipate re-entering society to return to our home churches.
The words prescribed were spoken.
There is no prohibition of expanding the greeting as the circumstances warrant. Ergo..... (Same for maniples, forearms on mensa, washing fingers with wine.... Or are not you going to mount your soap box and DEAMND that these "traditional" practices be ended forthwith and those who obstinately continue them be punished?)
If interrupting, as you see it - a view I do not share - the greeting with a welcome to first communicants is unacceptable, the interrupting the homily would also be verboten.
The GIRM says that the homily, "...should be an exposition of some aspect of the readings from Sacred Scripture or of another text from the Ordinary or from the Proper of the Mass of the day and should take into account both the mystery being celebrated and the particular needs of the listeners."
Can't be adding greetings to that if they can't be added to the greeting at the beginning of mass.......
So you now think that a priest can add to the prescribed ritual words? I guess, therefore, you would have no objection to a priest in your parish expanding the opening rite to include all of the prayers at the foot of the altar, no? What about adding the words of the old offertory prayers to Mass? All of this would be ok with you, no? Or is Fr. Kavanaugh the only one who can take liberties with the Mass?
Anthony - I generally trust priests not to do foolish things at mass. Does it happen? Sure. Adding the prayers you suggest would be foolish, you must agree. But, you've neatly dodged my question. Will you be equally aghast at those traddie clerics who include elements of the old rite in the NO? Are you going to crusade against those who insert elements you approve of, or just shrug and pretend that the renewal for which you pine is just around the corner?
Fr. Kavanaugh,
I am dodging nothing. It is you who set up the rule that a priest, despite the specific statement of the General Instructions forbidding it, can add words to the ritual of the Mass.
As for the examples that you gave, you are being silly. When the priest bows at the altar, his arms have to go somewhere. What is the objection if they touch the mensa? As for the use of water and wine for the ablution, are you not aware of para. 279:
"The purification of the chalice is done with water alone or with wine and water..."
Despite the opinions of many, the new Missal allows many more traditional elements than you think. Do not mistake the current fashion on how the new Mass is celebrated with what is required. The freedom to do so is what I have always advocated.
As for the use of maniples and other elements of the from the old Mass, I hold that when the new Mass is celebrated, that the present Missal should be followed strictly, even though I would like to see more elements from the old Mass be reintroduced into the new. If you would review my history of postings you would see that I have often advocated for the return of the old offertory prayers. I, however, do not hold that a priest can introduce them on his own.
Now back to you. If you claim the right to introduce words to the ritual formulas given in the Missal, how can you object of traditionalist priest do the same?
Anthony - The CHALICE is purified with wine and water, not the priest's fingers.
But you might say it doesn't matter much really! I would say that neither does welcoming first communicants at the beginning of mass.
Arms on the mensa, in the old rite, took place when the priest spoke the words of institution, not when he bowed at the altar.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
Para. 278 says: "Whenever a fragment of the host adheres to his fingers, especially after the fraction or after the Communion of the faithful, the Priest should wipe his fingers over the paten or, if necessary, wash them."
It does not say they should be washed with water alone. Given both liturgical history and the instruction in para. 279 that both water and wine can be used for the ablution of the chalice, you have no reason to object to the use of water and wine other than your abhorrence to anything that smacks of the old Mass.
The priest "bows" at the words of institution. Placing his arms helps steady him while he says these words. Again, you can have no real objection other than it looks like the old Mass.
And it is still you who are dodging. If you can add words to the ritual formula for the greeting, what objections can you have if a priest were to add words to extend the Introductory Rite or the Preparation of the Gifts? Nota bene, I am not advocating or approving of this, only asking what objections can you raise if you have already, despite what the General Instructions explicitly states, say that a priest can add words?
Anthony - If I can't object (I do, but for the moment...) to fingers being washed with wine, then YOU can't object to the welcoming of first communicants at the beginning of mass.
If a priest must brace himself by placing his forearms on the mensa at a slight bow, he needs 1) a medical examination, 2) a physical therapist, 3) an exercise regimen, or 4) a retirement home.
I can’t believe that after all these years, you are still rebelling against your pre—VAtican II seminary training at Mt. St. Mary’s! I know they would not have taught you to denigrate what previous generations and new generations today have held as sacred. And even worse, for you, a director of ecumenism for our diocese would you mock and make fun of the interesting aspects of our Eastern Rite liturgies, far more elaborate than even the Mass you mock or even the Anglican Ordinariate Mass which includes many pre-Vatican II aspects in its celebration. Wow! Just Wow!
Fr. ALLAN McDonald - When you have nothing to add to a conversation it's best to keep your mouth shut. That goes double when you don't know what you're talking about. Oh, and ..... Just Wow.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
You are comparing apples to oranges. The question about washing fingers with wine is about something that the General Instruction gives no specific instruction on. It only says that the priest can wash his hands. The use of wine along with water is based on historical precedent and the stated option for the use of wine for the ablution. Your desire to add words to the prescribed words of the greeting is something that is specifically forbidden by the Instruction. And you are still dodging the question: If you claim the right to add words to the greeting, how could you object if a priest were to add words to expand the Entrance Rite or the Preparation of the Gifts?
You, as many do, seem to be under the impression that if a former practice is not specifically mentioned in the new Mass that is forbidden. This is not so. I point you to para. 42:
"Attention must therefore be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and by the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice."
Thus, historical precedent is a legitimate guide to how to celebrate the Mass.
Anthony - You say that if it is not forbidden then it is allowed. That's how you justify wearing maniples, washing fingers with wine, and resting arms on the mensa.
There is nothing in the GIRM for the greeting that forbids welcoming first communicants. Therefore, I did nothing wrong in doing so.
By your erroneous reading of #42 and priest could choose to make the 51 to 56 signs of the cross during the mass, 26 of them within the canon. He could, of his own volition, recite the so-called "Last Gospel" at each mass, include the 12 genuflections. He could reinstate the lectionary in use prior to 1962. These are, after all, "the traditional practice" of the Roman Rite.
No, GIRM 42 does not authorize such nonsense.
Thank you.
Fr. Kavanaugh,
I have never said that "if it is not forbidden then it is allowed." Rather, when something is to be done and the Missal does not explicitly say how, then para. 42 allows traditional practices to be a guide. I would not read it so broadly as to allow multiple signs of the Cross or adding the Last Gospel. That is just an example of your typical tactic of exaggeration.
Now I am going to ask again, if you say that you can add words to the ritual of the Mass despite the explicit instruction in para. 24 that you cannot, what objections against a priest restoring the full Prayers at the Foot of the Altar or the old Offertory Prayers? Please be so kind to answer this question directly. No, to use your words,, the GIRM does not authorize such nonsense.
Anthony - If traddie priests can insert at will their "traditional" liturgical practices because they are not explicitly barred by the GIRM, then I can insert greeting to first communicants at the beginning of mass because this, too, is not explicitly barred.
You can't be in favor of one and not the other.
Alright already, we know that you and 100% of priests, no matter their leanings, don’t like the Bugnini Mass by the book and improve it in their own ways, like you, bless your little heart and theirs.
Alright already, we know that you and 2% of priests, no matter their leanings, don't have the depth of theological formation needed to appreciate the Mass of Pope Paul VI for what it is. Nor can you enter into a discussion about it with anything of value to add. Bless your little brain.
Post a Comment