Abuse of the Extraordinary Form?

[presbyter]

In my childhood in the 1950s, I was brought up to sing the Mass - plainsong, in dialogue with the choir.

The parish I attended must have been influenced by the work of this Society - and it followed Papal legislation on Sacred Music in regard to the participation of the faithful (1903, 1928, 1947, 1955, 1958...)

I have no problem with those who wish to celebrate in the Extraordinary Form of the 1962 Missal. I do wonder, though, why some of its adherents choose deliberately to ignore the above legislation. This example, to me, is sheer and unmitigated disobedience towards the liturgical principles promulgated in the official Church documents. Why are the congregation denied their rightful participation in singing the Mass?

http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/tutorial/missa-pontificalis/video/missa-pontificalis-ewtn.html

[Calum Cille]

Why are the congregation denied their rightful participation in singing the Mass?

Here's a more sympathetic point to be drawn from the video - that the congregation are also denied their rightful participation in mumbling the mass. God sings (Zephaniah 3:17), the angels sing, the medieval church sings, the Orthodox sing, the Jews sing. One might enquire, "what on earth is the rightful participation in mumbling the mass about?"

To this, I'll add another point - the rightful participation of the priest in mumbling the mass; the priest who himself doesn't want to sing and who has an underdeveloped voice box as a direct consequence. "I can't lift weights because I don't lift weights and I can't sing because I don't sing." Imagine an Orthodox priest saying that kind of thing. Exactly. Imposing your own (possibly slightly drab or pompous sounding) prosody on the words of the liturgy just isn't a option. Why? Exactly. No private masses. No 'low' masses.

This video offers an interesting contrast to an approach I find more common. The approach in the video is the product of an attitude that priests sing, choirs sing and the whole congregation sing their parts of the dialogues because those parts aren't too challenging. Thus everything gets sung and, generally, all sing what is asked of them. The second approach is the product of an attitude that the priests don't sing, choirs sing and the whole congregation follows the priest's cue in mumbling the dialogues, part of the congregation leaving the sung ordinary to the choir and "the singers in the congregation" who have not joined the choir. Thus only bits of the mass get sung.

Now, here's another point. Under the latter conditions, those who follow the priest's cue in refusing to sing the ordinary with "the singers" also in practice refrain from even mumbling the same parts of the mass, for obvious reasons (one group doesn't normally speak a text while another group sings it). Turning (de facto) one part of the congregation into a congregational choir means that the non-singers opt out of their rightful participation in mumbling the mass. Therefore, the difference between what's going on in this video and various parishes I could name is chiefly the difference between the following two options: to have the choir singing the ordinary or to have all the singers in the congregation singing the ordinary. Either way, the singing can entail the lack of verbal participation of a not insignificant number of individuals whether this results from personal choice or not.

Barring the introduction of some authoritative teaching stating that it is a sin to abstain regularly from singing at mass without good reason, I don't imagine that large numbers of "won't sing though I can" priests or congregation members (particularly males, like the priest) are going to feel any time soon that singing is a necessity for them at mass. It looks like the status quo, of the sung congregational ordinary triggering the ducking out of rightful participation in the ordinary, is set to continue.

[nazard]

... Why are the congregation denied their rightful participation in singing the Mass?

Do you have any evidence that they are actually denied their participation?

Until recently, tridentine masses that I have attended have been virtually silent on the congregation's part, their noise making efforts being merely the side effects of changing posture and generally being at least half alive. I understand that this was common practice in some places right up to the 1965 reforms. Where I went to mass as a child we always had dialogue mass, so I asked a priest who says tridentine mass why it was the older, silent mass which was being restored rather than dialogue mass. He replied that it was up to individual members of the congregation how they responded, and that if I wanted to respond aloud he was quite happy with that. Congregations are starting to respond now. Try going to the daily tridentine mass in Dursley (Glos) if you want to hear dialogue mass beginning to find its feet.

Beware of concluding that people whose lips are not moving are not participating. Cardinal Arinze was always going on about striving for inner participation. His words rather struck a chord with me.

The video is also interesting because it shows high mass with lots of choreographed moves for the deacon and subdeacon. All that faffing about leaves me cold, and leads me to support the council's injunction to "simplify the rituals." Unfortunately the new mass team, although they dropped a lot of the old pointless shuffling about, introduced some new ones of their own, like gospel processions and processions of the gifts.

[presbyter]

Where I went to mass as a child we always had dialogue mass,

Precisely - a practice that began at a Papal level in 1922 - and although the practice took a while to catch on here, it was drilled into me, aged seven, in primary school. But even before that age, I was singing the responses and Mass VIII in dialogue with the choir on a Sunday morning.

It is, therefore, the keen desire of the Church that all of the faithful kneel at the feet of the Redeemer to tell Him how much they venerate and love Him. She wants them present in crowds - like the children whose joyous cries accompanied His entry into Jerusalem - to sing their hymns and chant their song of praise and thanksgiving to Him who is King of Kings and Source of every blessing

[presbyter]

Do you have any evidence that they are actually denied their participation?

Isn't that manifest from the video? This assembly is not actively participating in the liturgical prayer as the Body of Christ (and remember Pius X's word in 1903 is attiva - i.e. actively joining in (.......che è la partecipazione attiva ai sacrosanti misteri e alla preghiera pubblica e solenne della Chiesa.) The Mass is liturgical prayer - an act of the Body of Christ - Head and members. The Mass is not, on the whole, an exercise in private, individual devotion for the assembly - although, of course, the essential moments of silence in the celebration enable us to be engaged in that.

[alan29]

Ah, memories.
I am left with the impression that it was all for the benefit of the performers, sorry the "altar party" and musicians. The people of God were permitted to look on in wonder.

[presbyter]

He replied that it was up to individual members of the congregation how they responded.

I suggest that he is in gross error in saying that and also that he if he's going to celebrate using the 1962 Missal, he should study intently the liturgy documents from 1903 that lead up to its inception and form/instruct his congregation in how to pray the Mass. If you're going to use the Extraordinary Form, celebrate it properly.

[NorthernTenor]

I’m not sure it's cause for surprise, Presbyter. It is, arguably, the foreseeable outcome of the way the Consilium went about the textual reform called for by the Second Vatican Council; and of the approach to the new liturgy of many with responsibility for implementing it. The creation by fiat of a very different form of the rite immediately associated reform with the new, not the old. While the new might have been understood and practiced in continuity with the old, the tendency has been to emphasise the differences between them. Worse, clergy, liturgists and musicians have frequently made a bogey-man of the old, and scoffed at and done their best to prohibit or ignore practices that might have helped bridge the two. The consequence seems to have been that reform is associated in the minds of many traditionalists with those who have little regard for liturgical tradition, rather than those - like the present Holy Father - who understand it as a slowly evolving organism, which of its nature sees gradual change over time. In reaction to this, some of those attached to the old form have gone onto the defensive and rejected the insights of the liturgical movement as leading to disconnection with tradition. I don’t doubt that the insular world into which many have retreated has resulted in others being simply ignorant of them and of the pre-conciliar developments they inspired.

Rejection and ignorance have been strengthened by the hostile attitude of many Bishops to traditionalists over the years - an attitude which seems to live on in some dioceses in this country, despite Summorum Pontificum. That document is a wonderful opportunity to establish sympathetic dialogue about the meaning of the Council, and all that had preceded it, for the ways in which the old form might be celebrated. Dialogue will also be an opportunity for those of us involved in the practice of the newer form to think carefully about the meaning of liturgical tradition and development. Perhaps that dialogue will help both traditionalists and the rest of us move forward at last towards implementation of the ideals of the council, after an unhealthy hiatus of forty years.

[nazard]

Do you have any evidence that they are actually denied their participation?

Isn't that manifest from the video? This assembly is not actively participating in the liturgical prayer as the Body of Christ (and remember Pius X's word in 1903 is attiva - i.e. actively joining in (.......che è la partecipazione attiva ai sacrosanti misteri e alla preghiera pubblica e solenne della Chiesa.) The Mass is liturgical prayer - an act of the Body of Christ - Head and members. The Mass is not, on the whole, an exercise in private, individual devotion for the assembly - although, of course, the essential moments of silence in the celebration enable us to be engaged in that.

That they are not singing is evident. However, there is no evidence of a systematic denial by anyone. They may well be behaving like that because they are ignorant of the correct way to behave, or because they know that a teaching video is being made and they don't want their croaking recorded for posterity. I don't believe that your suggestion of denial is adequately supported. Let us be charitable and give them the benefit of the doubt.

He replied that it was up to individual members of the congregation how they responded.

I suggest that he is in gross error in saying that and also that he if he's going to celebrate using the 1962 Missal, he should study intently the liturgy documents from 1903 that lead up to its inception and form/instruct his congregation in how to pray the Mass. If you're going to use the Extraordinary Form, celebrate it properly.

I will pass your views on to him.

The EF seems to me to be growing, both in the number of masses and in the number of the faithful attending them. I don't believe in a general return to the EF: after all a council decided to reform it. I do, however, believe that the reform which was implemented got a lot wrong, and the church has just sat back and taken the consequences for forty years. A slow growth in the EF might just sound a few alarm bells.

[NorthernTenor]

I don't believe in a general return to the EF: after all a council decided to reform it.

But the Council didn't reform it - the Council asked for reform, and after the Council, the Consilium, influenced by a particular, contraversial understanding of reform, that would have been foreign to many involved in the liturgical movement earlier in the century, produced the new form; Paul VI authorised it; translators and Bishops' conferences added their own take; and clergy, liturgists and musicians implemented it. All largely by fiat, in a very ultramontane fashion. Which is why trads and the rest of us are where we are.

[Reginald]

Some years ago Presbyter was kind enough to point me in the direction of a book on the liturgical reforms, from which I learned that there was a number of bishops in England and Wales who refused to allow the dialogue Mass in their dioceses - right through to the V2 reforms. It would seem that the silent congregation is simply living out the orthodoxy of its youth - as we shall no doubt see with the congregations singing the Israeli Mass in twenty years time

[Calum Cille]

... some of those attached to the old form have ... rejected the insights of the liturgical movement as leading to disconnection with tradition.

Take the case of the orientation of churches and graves. Gaelic crosses show the symbol of the sun. We could ignore this sun symbolism, even disregard it with new churches or graves, but would that be a liturgical and cultural enrichment or impoverishment, strengthening or weakening? Facing east, we address the source of light and life; the people watch the priest as he steps forward on their behalf to face the Father, as it were, for the eucharistic prayer. Facing west as priest, there is a striking change of symbolism: the priest turns his back on the Father, as it were, and faces the people instead for the eucharistic prayer.

The desire to have the priest face the people over a table, as if at the Last Supper or some agape, would be a nice alternative practice/symbolism in a cultural vacuum, but Catholic liturgy is not a cultural vacuum, particularly not with respect to Orthodox liturgy. As far as Uwe Michael Lang is concerned certainly, the alternative practice/symbolism constitutes a disconnection with centuries of tradition.

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features ... aug09.html

I remember visiting a church which had the altar area almost entirely encircled with seating. The congregation was literally seated round the table. Consequently, the priest has his back to some parishioners and his front to others.

[nazard]

To me it seems blindingly obvious that the priest should face the same way as the people. Were I ever to attend mass in the church with seating "behind" the altar I know where I would sit.

[Southern Comfort]

I don't believe in a general return to the EF: after all a council decided to reform it.

But the Council didn't reform it - the Council asked for reform, and after the Council, the Consilium, influenced by a particular, contraversial understanding of reform, that would have been foreign to many involved in the liturgical movement earlier in the century, produced the new form; Paul VI authorised it; translators and Bishops' conferences added their own take; and clergy, liturgists and musicians implemented it. All largely by fiat, in a very ultramontane fashion. Which is why trads and the rest of us are where we are.

We've been here before, and this statement was as untrue then as it still is now. The Consilium, by and large, did its work in response to the demands of the world's bishops. All well documented. Read, for example, Piero Marini's A Challenging Reform[.

It is unrealistic to imagine that the vast international army of liturgical experts that were co-opted by the Consilium to carry out its work (once again, all well documented) would all have espoused the same "controvsersial" understanding of reform. On the contrary, they were scholars who had been part of the Liturgical Movement since the 1st World War and impassionately brought their skills and experience to bear on the task at hand. The much-vilified Archbishop Bugnini, often accused of being a secret freemason, did not dictate the work of the Consilium. He merely co-ordinated it.

To me it seems blindingly obvious that the priest should face the same way as the people. Were I ever to attend mass in the church with seating "behind" the altar I know where I would sit.

We'e been here before too. The altar is the primary symbol of Christ in our midst. When priest and people face the altar, from whichever side they happen to be standing, they are all facing in the same direction. The symbolism of facing east has nothing to do with facing the light, by the way; it's about facing the direction from which the eschaton was, at the time, expected to "arrive".

[nazard]

I don't believe in a general return to the EF: after all a council decided to reform it.

But the Council didn't reform it - the Council asked for reform, and after the Council, the Consilium, influenced by a particular, contraversial understanding of reform, that would have been foreign to many involved in the liturgical movement earlier in the century, produced the new form; Paul VI authorised it; translators and Bishops' conferences added their own take; and clergy, liturgists and musicians implemented it. All largely by fiat, in a very ultramontane fashion. Which is why trads and the rest of us are where we are.

That is my understanding - the liturgy was reformed by a Consilium. I was careless in my wording: instead of "a council decided to reform it" I should have written "a council decided that it should be reformed."

We've been here before, and this statement was as untrue then as it still is now. The Consilium, by and large, did its work in response to the demands of the world's bishops. All well documented. Read, for example, Piero Marini's A Challenging Reform[.

I refer you to your own answer given here: http://www.ssg.org.uk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=950&p=11681&hilit=+marini#p11681. It would appear that the Consilium worked in response to the demands of the world's bishops outside the council. The point about Sacrosanctum Consilium is that it was voted upon and represents an agreement. Was a general vote of Bishops on the New Mass ever taken? How was it decided which suggestions would be implemented and which would fall by the wayside?

It is unrealistic to imagine that the vast international army of liturgical experts that were co-opted by the Consilium to carry out its work (once again, all well documented) would all have espoused the same "controvsersial" understanding of reform. On the contrary, they were scholars who had been part of the Liturgical Movement since the 1st World War and impassionately brought their skills and experience to bear on the task at hand. The much-vilified Archbishop Bugnini, often accused of being a secret freemason, did not dictate the work of the Consilium. He merely co-ordinated it.

Bugnini does get it in the neck rather a lot. Surely the responsibility lies with Paul VI?

To me it seems blindingly obvious that the priest should face the same way as the people. Were I ever to attend mass in the church with seating "behind" the altar I know where I would sit.

We'e been here before too. The altar is the primary symbol of Christ in our midst. When priest and people face the altar, from whichever side they happen to be standing, they are all facing in the same direction. The symbolism of facing east has nothing to do with facing the light, by the way; it's about facing the direction from which the eschaton was, at the time, expected to "arrive".

This is a nice illustration of the difference between the blindingly obvious and the murkily obscure. The idea that a group of people standing on different sides of an object all looking at it are all facing in the same direction is far removed from normal understanding. It reminds me of a lovely explanation of how to thumb a lift in Asterix: "You should jerk your thumb in the direction in which you want to travel. If you want to go to Rome the direction is immaterial since all roads lead there."

Much of the symbolism of the new mass is just too obscure. The Communion Procession remains the canteen queue: a slow shuffle forward avoiding the person in front of you until it ends without time to collect your thoughts. No amount of music and singing turns it into a procession.