Preparing for Lent and Easter 2012

[JW]

Thank you for the clear answer, SC. My experience of post 1970 Good Friday liturgies is limited to Welling (1970 to 1975) and Rainham, post 1975, and both only used (1). I wasn't aware that (2) existed till yesterday!

[keitha]

Tsume Tsuyu said

What bothers me more is the fact that we always use (and have always used) a cross, complete with corpus, and not a plain cross.

.
Interesting - what should we be using? I have only ever seen a crucifix used, with feet being kissed at the veneration - but both the Missal and the Ceremonial of Bishops states that it is the veneration of the Cross, not the body of Christ on the Cross. Surely Tsume is right - it should be a plain cross. Anyone have any views or definitive authorities?

[JW]

In my limited experience it's always been a crucifix and I remember the nuns at the Visitation Convent, Bridport instructing us to kiss the feet of Jesus c.1956! I have a feeling that I remember a crucifix being specified in the old Roman Missal, but could easily be wrong.

Have just looked up the 1962 Roman Missal online, and here is the relevant rubric:
14. Orationibus solemnibus completis, celebrans
et ministri redeunt ad sedilia, ubi
celebrans deponit pluviale, ministri dalmaticam
vel tunicellam; et datur initium solemni
adorationi sanctae Crucis.
Adhibeatur Crux satis magna, cum Crucifixo,
velo violaceo obtecto, quod facile
removed possit.

So a cross "with Crucifix" was mandated. I assume this has not changed in the current Roman Missal?

[quaeritor]

. . . So a cross "with Crucifix" was mandated. . . .

My halting Latin suggests "...a cross with the Crucified . . "

Q

[John Ainslie]

I have examined very carefully the rubrics in the current edition of the Missal, and also the 1988 Instruction, Sollemnitas Paschalis. Both refer to 'Holy Cross' or 'Cross' (with initial capitals). Nowhere do they refer to a figure on it.

In the instructions for unveiling, the Missal refers to 'the arm of the Cross'. In the Veneration, the rubric reads:

Then the clergy, the lay ministers, and the faithful approach, moving as if in procession, and showing reverence to the Cross by a simple genuflection or by some other sign appropriate to the usage of the region, for example, by kissing the Cross.

Note 'by kissing the Cross': no mention of the feet of the Crucified.

In addition, note the wording of the Veneration antiphon 'Adoramus crucem tuam' and of the 'Crux fidelis'. They are to do with the wood of the Cross, not the image on it.

I have to say that I hadn't realised until just now how striking this is. In practice I have only known a cross with an image to be used, and for people to kiss the feet of the image - not the face, I seem to remember, because Judas kissed Jesus on the face to betray him.

[Southern Comfort]

Don't have a Latin Missale Romanum 2011 (revised from the 2008 Latin text), but the English text says "Cross" throughout and nothing else, which is a pretty fair indication, given the literalism of the translation.

Meanwhile, here's para 68 of Paschale Solemnitatis 1988:

For veneration of the cross, let a cross be used that is of appropriate size and beauty, and let one or other of the forms for this rite be carried out with the splendour worthy of the mystery of our salvation. Both the invitation pronounced at the unveiling of the cross and the people's response should be made in song, and a period of respectful silence is to be observed after each act of veneration, with the celebrant standing and holding the raised cross.

Nothing here about a cross with a corpus either.

[John Ainslie's answer above was being posted while I was researching mine. Sorry for any duplication.]

[NorthernTenor]

Is the showing of the Cross on Good Friday still a threefold affair? The instructions here seem to suggest that it isn't. I haven't seen the Roman Missal and don't want to mention this in the parish if there's no change.

Two forms:

(1) Threefold, gradual unveiling (para 15, page 362), or
(2) Procession of already completely unveiled cross (para 16, page 363)

Choose which you want. In my experience over the past 42 years of the revised (1970) rites, everyone does (2), not (1), but I'm sure there must be some places where they cling to the older tradition.

I can't help but be amused by SC's estimation of the significance of his experience of the past 42 years (a blink of the eye in the context of our liturgical history), as against that of those few, poor, benighted places where they "cling" to the older tradition.

My dear friends,

JW asked a very simple question, and I gave him a very simple, factual answer: A or B. I added that I had never seen one of those two alternatives since 1970. Once again a simple statement. No quality judgement, no assertion that one was better than the other and therefore should be done.

NT's amusement is ill-judged, if not gratuitously snarky. He has, once again, read something into a comnment which simply wasn't there. I don't feel this forum benefits from that kind of behaviour.

I'm sorry you feel that way, SC. Experience now tells me that it is not possible to publicly disagree with you without a prickly and sometimes abusive response, whether - as last time - I proffer a considered analysis of your comment or - as this time - I try to make light of it, in order to minimise the risk of the abuse I received on the previous occasion (and frequently before that). I will, however, risk the suggestion that you consider (a) docmatc's observation on your mode of argument (b) the possibility that "I'm sure there must be some places where they cling to the older tradition" might be construed as dismissive of those who think differently to you and (c) the questions about tradition, continuity and 1970 that your observation leaves begging. I will chance my arm by further suggesting that these are all matters in scope of this comment board.

I hope we can now leave this thread to some of the interesting and informative observations that have followed since.

[JW]

I wonder, would there be rebellion in the pews if a cross was used without the image?

P.S. Q's Latin is nowhere near as halting as mine!

[Nick Baty]

Or with – depending on your starting point!

[nazard]

We changed from with to without two years ago, and my impression was that no one noticed.

[Hare]

Has anyone seen the Redemptorist Triduum booklets http://www.rpbooks.co.uk/product_detail ... em_id=1080 please?

If so, I have a couple of questions, because I haven't seen it and cannot find full details anywhere: 1) Are any Latin texts given? 2) What is the "selection of hymns" ?

Many thanks in advance

[NorthernTenor]

Improperia, Part I.

[Southern Comfort]

Improperia, Part I.

This is very interesting and has much to commend it. Unfortunately the setting puts the stress on the second syllable of "ischyros". It should be on the first syllable.

[mcb]

I have examined very carefully the rubrics in the current edition of the Missal, and also the 1988 Instruction, Sollemnitas Paschalis. Both refer to 'Holy Cross' or 'Cross' (with initial capitals). Nowhere do they refer to a figure on it.

the English text says "Cross" throughout and nothing else, which is a pretty fair indication

We had this discussion in 2007, and again in 2011. These three posts were helpful.

My view is this: anyone who seriously wants to argue, contra traditional practice and based on a literal (fundamentalist?) reading of the the present Missal, that the Good Friday veneration involves a bare cross with no corpus, will need to tell us what the Latin is for 'crucifix' (hint: it's not crucifixus), and for a 'bare cross with no corpus' (hint: it's not crux). That the Missal translators have gone for 'cross' as the English for crux tells us something about their literalist approach to their task, but nothing informative about the intended practice for the Good Friday veneration.

[mcb]

p.s. At Salford we have the hybrid 1 + 2 procession and unveiling, the same as John describes.