GIRM - Preferences when options are available

[contrabordun]

I've seen it stated here, and it was repeated by Mgr Boylan in the recent M&L, that where GIRM gives a variety of options for a particular item, then the first option is 'to be preferred'.

What is the basis for making this statement? (I can't find it either in GIRM or CTM).
Assuming that the statement is correct, how do we judge the strength of that preference? (I might be inclined to chose a lower-ranked option in view of X, but somebody else might consider that X is insufficient reason for chosing that option: how do we avoid subjective judgements of this nature?)

[quaeritor]

Do any of our Latin experts know if there is any nuance in the original - "Do A or failing that do B", as distinct from "choose one of A, B, C etc" ? (There are probably several different ways of saying "or" in Latin!)

In the absence of that it seems significant that where the lists contain the same options they do not always occur in the same order which implies that the order matters, (unless it just implies that the drafting is sloppy).

Just asking (as ever).

Q

[JW]

If this is the case (that the first given is preferred) are the clergy aware? Would that mean that EP 1 is the preferred EP? Is Penitential Rite A the preferred Penitential Rite?

...if so, for when (e.g. weekdays?) and for whom (e.g. confirmation Masses?, nuptial Masses?, Masses for the Sick?, Papal Visits - I forget which was used?)

There may be trouble ahead...

[Southern Comfort]

This is indeed a problem area.

(1) Until about 15 years ago, it was possible to say that when Roman documents offered several choices, they placed them in order of preference, with the favourite option in pole position. Tony Boylan is therefore correct, but only up to 15 years or so ago. Changes of personnel and praxis in the CDWDS have reshaped the landscape since then.

(2) What has happened now is something new in the history of Roman documents. A good exemplar is the document Redemptionis Sacramentum (2004). Readers may remember that in the years leading up to this document there were widespread rumours about what it would contain. The most "controversial" one was that it would ban liturgical dance. In the event, liturgical dance is not even mentioned.

However, what is true is that a draft of this document was circulated to bishops' conferences around the world for comment. Many of those conferences wrote back to Rome, saying "You just can't say this, this and this but you ought to say that, that and that."

Because the Roman mandarins are now totally incapable of admitting that they might have made a mistake, and are equally incapable of taking direction from bishops' conference (which is in itself disgraceful, but let us not get sidetracked), what they ended up doing with this document was retaining what the bishops had told them they could not say, and then inserting what the bishops preferred. So you now have a document with many internal contradictions. It frequently says both this and that, one following the other, theirs and the bishops'. But the problem is that this always appears before that.

What this means is that one can no longer talk about a hierarchy of choices, because often the one that is printed first may be contradicted by one that follows later, and the one that appears first may be be symptomatic of the Congregation mandarin's own personal bandwagon whereas what appears next is what a sane, pastoral approach would suggest is the best option. It is to be noted that this also applies to GIRM, which is now in an even sorrier state than it was previously.

All of this also applies to the latest vernacular translation of the Missal. To give just one very obvious example: in the 1973 English translation the rite of blessing and sprinkling of water appeared as the first choice near the beginning of Mass. In the hierarchy of options it was clearly the first choice, an editorial decision by the English-speaking bishops of the world. No longer. It has now been relegated to an appendix, because that is where it is in the Latin edition. This means that many pastors will not notice it and thus not use it.

[John Ainslie]

All of this also applies to the latest vernacular translation of the Missal. To give just one very obvious example: in the 1973 English translation the rite of blessing and sprinkling of water appeared as the first choice near the beginning of Mass. In the hierarchy of options it was clearly the first choice, an editorial decision by the English-speaking bishops of the world. No longer. It has now been relegated to an appendix, because that is where it is in the Latin edition. This means that many pastors will not notice it and thus not use it.

Another example is the variant forms of the third Penitential Act (not Rite ). In the previous altar missal, they were to be found, sensibly, within the text of the Introductory Rites. No longer. Now they appear as Appendix VI, at the very end of the Missal, necessitating a huge page heave of nearly a thousand pages to find them, and another heave to get back to the Gloria.

I am told that someone sensibly labelled the various sets with the seasons for which they had been created and to which they clearly belonged, only to have the proofs returned with all the labels removed. For your enlightenment:

I = Advent
II = Christmastide
III & IV = Lent
V = Passiontide (which season seems to have been revived)
VI = Eastertide
VII = Christ the King?

One should note that these are labelled 'Sample Invocations...', and in the text of the Penitential Act it still says 'the following or other invocations...', so it remains perfectly legitimate to compose one's own texts for this Act. It is clear that, on the basis of the samples given, they should all be addressed to the second person of the Blessed Trinity.

One more thing. Because everything has to be an exact translation of the Latin original, there is no Latin Ordo Missae at all in the Roman Missal as issued. Understandable consternation in some quarters.

[alan29]

Yet at least one lay missal contains both the Latin and English - presumably to allow people to provide their own alternatives to the Pellglish we have been given.

[Peter]

So you now have a document with many internal contradictions. It frequently says both this and that, one following the other, theirs and the bishops'. But the problem is that this always appears before that.

One specific instance of this is to be found in section 43 of the GIRM (April 2005 edition), which says "The faithful should stand ... from the invitation, Orate fratres ... until the end of Mass, except at the places detailed below."

The relevant exceptions referred to are "... as circumstances allow, they may sit or kneel while the period of sacred silence after Communion is observed. But they should kneel at the consecration, except when prevented on occasion by reason of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason. Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration." Later it adds "Where it is the practice for the people to remain kneeling after the Sanctus until the end of the Eucharistic Prayer ... this practice is laudably retained."

In other words, the preferred option is to stand throughout the Eucharistic Prayer (which is what happens at my church) except for the consecration (we remain standing because most seats have no kneelers, so we exercise the permitted option to bow instead). Yet how many other places actually do this? At other places I've been to Mass recently people kneel throughout the Eucharistic Prayer, even at a church that was opened after the GIRM was issued and so arguably had no practice of kneeling to be retained, laudably or otherwise. I get the feeling we're "the only ones in step" and even at our recent All Saints Mass there were a lot of visitors who kneeled even while our regulars stood.

At another church I visited recently, the card with the new responses was unequivocal in this regard: after the Sanctus the instruction was "All kneel": not even a mention of the option preferred by the GIRM!

[alan29]

At ours people sit at all times that kneeling is usual - EP, communion etc. It changed from kneeling when the lovely oak pews (that had been designed by the architect) were replaced by wooden chairs in a moment of clerical madness. More recently slidey kneeler thingies have been bought, but the new habit dies hard. It has been the custom to sit during the passion for at least 20 years also.

[auchincruive]

At another church I visited recently, the card with the new responses was unequivocal in this regard: after the Sanctus the instruction was "All kneel": not even a mention of the option preferred by the GIRM!

Was this in Scotland? Here we have the instruction to kneel after the Holy, Holy as the Scottish Bishops have said

1) The Faithful are to rise as the celebrant says “Pray, brethren (brothers and sisters), that my sacrifice and yours……”. They are to remain standing until the end of the “Holy, Holy……”. They are to kneel through the rest of the Eucharistic Prayer as is the established custom in Scotland; following the same custom they are to kneel for the period before communion after the singing or saying of the “Lamb of God”.

See http://www.romanmissalscotland.org.uk/n ... issal.html

[kerrezza]

1) The Faithful are to rise as the celebrant says “Pray, brethren (brothers and sisters), that my sacrifice and yours……”. They are to remain standing until the end of the “Holy, Holy……”. They are to kneel through the rest of the Eucharistic Prayer as is the established custom in Scotland; following the same custom they are to kneel for the period before communion after the singing or saying of the “Lamb of God”.

See http://www.romanmissalscotland.org.uk/n ... issal.html

That is exactly what happens here, not in Scotland but 20 miles from South Coast; has always been this way for as long as I can remember

[Peter]

Was this in Scotland? Here we have the instruction to kneel after the Holy, Holy as the Scottish Bishops have said

1) The Faithful are to rise as the celebrant says “Pray, brethren (brothers and sisters), that my sacrifice and yours……”. They are to remain standing until the end of the “Holy, Holy……”. They are to kneel through the rest of the Eucharistic Prayer as is the established custom in Scotland; following the same custom they are to kneel for the period before communion after the singing or saying of the “Lamb of God”.

To the best of my recollection it was in London. It certainly wasn't Scotland.

[Gedackt flute]

Because the Roman mandarins are now totally incapable of admitting that they might have made a mistake, and are equally incapable of taking direction from bishops' conference (which is in itself disgraceful, but let us not get sidetracked), what they ended up doing with this document was retaining what the bishops had told them they could not say, and then inserting what the bishops preferred. So you now have a document with many internal contradictions. It frequently says both this and that, one following the other, theirs and the bishops'. But the problem is that this always appears before that.

This give Rise to the thought that they could be wrong, or they could be right:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPj-8_wOZcA

[nazard]

1) The Faithful are to rise as the celebrant says “Pray, brethren (brothers and sisters), that my sacrifice and yours……”. They are to remain standing until the end of the “Holy, Holy……”. They are to kneel through the rest of the Eucharistic Prayer as is the established custom in Scotland; following the same custom they are to kneel for the period before communion after the singing or saying of the “Lamb of God”.

See http://www.romanmissalscotland.org.uk/n ... issal.html

That is exactly what happens here, not in Scotland but 20 miles from South Coast; has always been this way for as long as I can remember

It happens here too, ten miles from the north coast.

[quaeritor]

Haven't we discussed this before somewhere - I can't track it down, but I've a hazy memory - perhaps it was somewhere else.

It was a live issue for me because when our church was re-arranged, closing off the choir loft, the architect (among other touches of genius like locating the organ next to a huge hot air blower) gave the choir nowhere to kneel, except unsupported, on the floor. Everyone therefore sat - back out of sight and not even facing the altar. Not liking this, I suggested standing, it being "the correct thing to do" anyway (the congregation of course knelt). I was told somewhat tartly by one of the singers that "the posture prescribed by the Archbishops' and bishops' conference of England and Wales" is to kneel for the EP.

GIRM was no help, containing a clear misprint (Where it is the practice for the people to remain after the Sanctus until the end of the Eucharistic Prayer . . ), but I know that was acknowledged and clarified somewhere (before I had time to poke fun at the omission of a word after "remain", thus apparently reflecting the option to nip off for a break while the Celebrant did his bit) although with apologies, I can't remember where.

The point is, I am sure that I found clarification supporting the view of my sharp-tongued singer, and accordingly modified my recommendation to stand. (In fact I bought a couple of kneelers from a reclamation yard for which the PP kindly reimbursed me.)

All this background is only to demonstrate that although I can't recall the various sources (for which I apologise again) I am pretty sure that I established (albeit unwillingly) that I had been wrong, and that kneeling is the England and Wales "rule"

Is anyone able to confirm (or deny?)

Q