Abuse of the Extraordinary Form?

[John Ainslie]

To me it seems blindingly obvious that the priest should face the same way as the people.

I have considerable sympathy with your viewpoint, nazard.

Having the priest facing the people does give a stronger impression that what he is doing is with them rather than just on their behalf, instead of having his back to them at a distant altar. When he is actually addressing them, as in the dialogues, there is no contest: he should face those he is addressing.

But the Eucharistic Prayer is not addressed to the congregation but to God the Father. Moreover, the altar and the sacred species on it, however symbolic/sacramental of Christ, are not the terminus of our worship but the intermediate. Christ the High Priest is the mediator the new covenant; we are bidden and enabled to join with him in his eternal offering to the Father. We pray together, priest and people, 'through him, with him, in him'. Should we not all face the same direction to do so? That is the monastic choral practice for prayers. Having the priest as the focus of everything has been called by one writer 'an unprecedented clericalization': the name of the said writer is Joseph Ratzinger ('The Spirit of the Liturgy', pp 79-80).

However, reordering a church differently with the priest and people on the same side of the altar is actually very problematic. It is not simply a question of the priest swapping sides of an existing altar. I visited the issue some years ago in my articles in Music and Liturgy entitled 'A Question of Orientation', without resolving the question.

In existing church arrangements versus populum, some relief might be gained by having the doxology sung/said by the priest with host and chalice raised high and his eyes looking upwards with them. Then at least the symbolism of 'upwards' gives some impression of offering to the unseen God. (GIRM says that at the consecration the priest 'shows' the host and chalice, but at the doxology he 'elevates' them.)

Having the altar crucifix (preferably with a glorious Christ) suspended high above the altar can provide a visual focus for this. Pope Benedict seems quite keen on this 'solution'.

[Calum Cille]

Hello and welcome to the Hermeneutics of Hierarchy show, where symbols jostle for primary, secondary and tertiary position in a vertiginously vertical conceptual framework - no joint winners permitted! Tradition is tossed to the four airts in an eager-beaver scrabble for intellectual control over The Rewrite Of The Rowoman Rite. ('Man' is to be seen as a sexist term to be replaced, under a skewed view of languages, by 'woman': this would be redress for centuries of mothers instructing their offspring that big boys don't cry!) Experience the thrills of foolhardy innovation in raw and raucous revisionist action! Watch the stomach-churning sight of sacred cows meeting their maker - gross! Even the tetragrammaton is fair prey here! Yes, it's all up for grabs and the only rule is - there are no rules anymore - except the new ones we've just made up - yesterday - twice! (We're making our mark on church history - yay!) This week, the purple team Pastoral-Demiurgy will try to topple the dizzying artifice of red team Bower-or-Table. Have they got the guts to stand on shaky theology and reach above themselves? Or will ever-popular lax praxis be sufficient to budge those difficult-to-shift, stick-in-the-mud, trustworthy old symbols. Will the whole edifice come crashing down on all on Sunday? Don't miss the rip-roaring, rabble-rousing, rite-rending temporal chaos that is - Hermeneutics of Hierarchy!

The altar is the primary symbol of Christ in our midst.

John Ainslie has explained the principle very succinctly here. In the eucharistic prayer, we don't pray to the Son through the Father, we pray to the Father through the Son. "... christianum altare symbolum est Ipsius Christi ..." Me Tarzan, you Jane, altar symbol of Christ. Me no see word 'primary'. Me no need agree. Tabernacle no symbol of Christ? Me bow to Real Presence of Primus Christ or Saint Bones?

When priest and people face the altar, from whichever side they happen to be standing, they are all facing in the same direction.

(Nice sophistry. On that logic, processions moving round a church are also always facing in the same direction, ie, almost everyone faces the fellow in front.) The priest and people are always facing the altar but the symbolic content at issue here for me is of the priest facing the altar and the people (when addressing the Father and not addressing them) or facing the altar and the east and not the people.

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".

Prove it and then put it in those terms, why don't you? On that logic, the symbolism of waving palms and shouting 'hosanna' has "nothing to do with" Sukkoth because it's about the arrival of our Lord in Jerusalem. By using the words, "nothing to do with", you maintain that there is complete dissociation between the airt of the parousia and facing the light. Why is the parousia not in the west? Why does the Son not sit at the left hand of the Father? Because these choices are taken on account of their pre-existent symbolic content which directly imbue the choice with meaning. God is light, the Father of lights; if you face God, you face the light, the true light, the lightning from the east, the sun of righteousness, his star in the east, the light-bearer, the morning star, oriens ex alto.

[alan29]

A simple-minded thought. When God the Father is omnipresent we face him whichever way we face. As a 21st century Christian I derive little value in facing the rising sun despite neat puns, and little edification when someone turns their back on me.

[JW]

Going back to the issue of congregational participation, I suspect that the 1962 rite does may not require congregational participation in the responses and prayers etc. Can someone clarify this? If the 1962 rite (which is the rite permitted in Summorum Pontificium) does require vocal participaton by the congregation, then either it is not being celebrated correctly, or they are harking back to an earlier rite - and should stop it! After all, Blessed John XX111 is suspect of 'modernism' by some ultra traditionalists. All academic to many of us of course.

Brings me back some years: to 6.30am Mass at my boarding school in 1955 when I was 4 - couldn't quite read by then, so nothing to do except yawn, definitely no talking out loud, either to God or the person sitting next to me. Wonder if I should write a book!

[John Ainslie]

The instruction of the Sacred Congregation of Rites of 3 September 1958 has much to say about the participation of the congregation. It makes it clear that interior participation is the most important feature of it, but it goes on to say in relation to Sung/High/Solemn Mass (para 22(b)):

The participation of the congregation becomes more complete, however, when, in addition to this interior disposition, exterior participation is manifested by external acts, such as bodily position (kneeling, standing, sitting), ceremonial signs, and especially responses, prayers, and singing.

Of participation in Low Mass, it says (para 31):

A final method of participation, and the most perfect form, is for the congregation to make the liturgical responses to the prayers of the priest, thus holding a sort of dialogue with him, and reciting aloud the parts which properly belong to them.

This is as near as one gets to formal approval of 'Dialogue Mass', which was earlier in the 1950s actually forbidden in some English dioceses.

So popular external participation in the way we now know it is not compulsory for users of the 1962 Missal, but it is certainly highly recommended.

[presbyter]

105. Therefore, they are to be praised who, with the idea of getting the Christian people to take part more easily and more fruitfully in the Mass, strive to make them familiar with the "Roman Missal," so that the faithful, united with the priest, may pray together in the very words and sentiments of the Church. They also are to be commended who strive to make the liturgy even in an external way a sacred act in which all who are present may share. This can be done in more than one way, when, for instance, the whole congregation, in accordance with the rules of the liturgy, either answer the priest in an orderly and fitting manner, or sing hymns suitable to the different parts of the Mass, or do both, or finally in high Masses when they answer the prayers of the minister of Jesus Christ and also sing the liturgical chant.

106. These methods of participation in the Mass are to be approved and recommended when they are in complete agreement with the precepts of the Church and the rubrics of the liturgy. Their chief aim is to foster and promote the people's piety and intimate union with Christ and His visible minister and to arouse those internal sentiments and dispositions which should make our hearts become like to that of the High Priest of the New Testament. However, though they show also in an outward manner that the very nature of the sacrifice, as offered by the Mediator between God and men,[102] must be regarded as the act of the whole Mystical Body of Christ, still they are by no means necessary to constitute it a public act or to give it a social character. And besides, a "dialogue" Mass of this kind cannot replace the high Mass, which, as a matter of fact, though it should be offered with only the sacred ministers present, possesses its own special dignity due to the impressive character of its ritual and the magnificence of its ceremonies. The splendor and grandeur of a high Mass, however, are very much increased if, as the Church desires, the people are present in great numbers and with devotion.

What do we think Pius XII is saying in the second half of paragraph 106?

[presbyter]

see below

[presbyter]

The instruction of the Sacred Congregation of Rites of 3 September 1958 has much to say about the participation of the congregation......

John, with respect, I think we need a fuller quotation:

More Perfect Worship
23. The primary end of general participation is the more perfect worship of God, and the edification of the faithful. Thus the various means of congregational participation should be so controlled that there is no danger of abuse, and this end is effectively achieved.

b. Participation of the faithful in sung Mass.

24. The more noble form of the Eucharistic celebration is the solemn Mass because in it the solemnities of ceremonies, ministers, and sacred music all combine to express the magnificence of the divine mysteries, and to impress upon the minds of the faithful the devotion with which they should contemplate them. Therefore, we must strive that the faithful have the respect due to this form of worship by properly participating in it in the ways described below.

25. In solemn Mass there are three degrees of the participation of the faithful:

a) First, the congregation can sing the liturgical responses. These are: Amen; Et cum spiritu tuo; Gloria tibi, Domine; Habemus ad Dominum; Dignum et justum est; Sed libera nos a malo; Deo gratias. Every effort must be made that the faithful of the entire world learn to sing these responses.
b) Secondly, the congregation can sing the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass: Kyrie, eleison; Gloria in excelsis Deo; Credo; Sanctus-Benedictus; Agnus Dei. Every effort must be made that the faithful learn to sing these parts, particularly according to the simpler Gregorian melodies. But if they are unable to sing all these parts, there is no reason why they cannot sing the easier ones: Kyrie, eleison; Sanctus-Benedictus; Agnus Dei; the choir, then, can sing the Gloria, and Credo.
c) Thirdly, if those present are well trained in Gregorian chant, they can sing the parts of the Proper of the Mass. This form of participation should be carried out particularly in religious congregations and seminaries.

26. High Mass, too, has its special place, even though it lacks the sacred ministers, and the full magnificence of the ceremonies of solemn Mass, for it is nonetheless enriched with the beauty of chant, and sacred music.
It is desirable that on Sundays, and feast days the parish or principal Mass be a sung Mass.

What has been said above in paragraph 25 about the participation of the faithful in Solemn High Mass also applies to the High Mass.

I will not be convinced if someone posts a suggestion that the congregation in the video does not know the Mass setting. The spoken dialogue Mass may well have not caught on in some places but this particular Mass is sung and the Sacred Congregation expects the faithful to join in with the singing.

[nazard]

I note that the verb used in clause 25, parts (a), (b) and (c) is "can." Remembering a certain Websters advert of a few years ago, I wonder if they meant "may." It does not say "must." I conclude that it is therefore not an abuse for individual members of the congregation to remain silent. What does the latin text say?

Myself, I like to pitch in with mass settings when I know them or have a copy of the music. It appears from this quote that I can, but I would like to know whether I may.

[presbyter]

25. In Missa itaque solemni, actuosa fidelium participatio tribus gradibus perfici potest:

a) Primus gradus habetur, cum omnes fideles responsa liturgica cantando reddunt: Amen; Et cum spiritu tuo; Gloria tibi Domine; Habemus ad Dominum; Dignum et iustum est; Sed libera nos a malo; Deo gratias. Oomni cura adlaborandum est, ut fideles omnes, ubique terrarum, haec responsa liturgica in cantu reddere valeant.

b) Secundus gradus habetur, cum omnes fideles partes quoque ex Ordine Missae decantant, scilicet: Kyrie eleison; Gloria in excelsis Deo; Credo; Sanctus-Benedictus; Agnus Dei. Adnitendum sane, ut fideles easdem partes ex Ordinario Missae, simplicioribus prasertim gregorianis modulis, decantare sciant. Si omnes vero partes cantare nequeant, nihil prohibet quominus faciliores, uti Kyrie, eleison; Sanctus-Benedictus; Agnus Dei; seligantur a fidelibus omnibus decantandae, Gloria in excelsis Deo et Credo a 'schola cantorum'..........

The implied "must" is in the last sentence of paragraph 24 "Adnitendum proinde...." Adnitor - strive, exert - is a pretty strong verb.

[nazard]

If I had translated that I would have said "may." The latin couples "potest" with "participatio" - the english translation is a bit on the free and careless side.

[presbyter]

24. Adnitendum proinde, ut fideles hanc celebrationis formam, ea qua par est aestimatione prosequantur, congrue eidem participando, prouti infra exponitur.

I still think the Congregation's intention is to get everyone praying in song.

[presbyter]

I It appears from this quote that I can, but I would like to know whether I may.

I suggest that if you do not sing, then you are not participating "congrue" - suitably or, as the English translation puts it, properly.

[nazard]

I agree, but I still think they are stopping short of compulsion. If you don't they are criticising you, but not anathemising you.

[presbyter]

If you don't they are criticising you, but not anathemising you.

Oh no. That's not the intention of the document at all. The 1958 document is an exhortation to best practice and a plea for liturgical formation of both the ordained ministers and the faithful. That's why I am sad about the video. It's presented by EWTN as a celebration of good (best?) liturgical practice re the 1962 Missal and, as I hope I am illustrating from pre-1962 Papal and Magisterial teaching, it is far from that. This Society began in 1929 by encouraging the faithful to celebrate according to the 1928 document Divini Cultus of Pius XI. This particular celebration is hardly in accord with that document, let alone the 1958 instruction.