Christ is present not only in the Eucharistic species, the Word, and the priest but also in the gathered assembly. The new rite is far more aware of the presence of Christ in the gathered assembly than was the former rite. There should be no need to put Christ back at the centre of the liturgy because, done properly, he is always there, in all four forms. At issue is basically people's personal preference as to which forms of the presence of Christ they would most like to focus on, or detract from.
There is an argument that we focus too much on Christ in the assembly and not enough on His presence in the Eucharist, there may be some mileage in this. Reginald, I think you are spot on when you say that the pope's aim may be to try and get the two rites to meet in the middle. Both rites have much to learn from the other and taken with this spirit, it may even work. However I am quite pessimistic about the chances of this happening because viewpoints on both sides of the debate are so entrenched. This could just fuel the fire.
To 'reconnect' with what sustained the church for x years implies a disconnection. This surely cannot be the case if the two missals are forms of the same rite.
Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum
Moderators: Dom Perignon, Casimir
-
contrabordun
- Posts: 514
- Joined: Sun May 23, 2004 4:20 pm
alan29 wrote:Erm there is a pretty disgraceful implication in the first part of the quote, I am not aware that celebrations I have helped plan have had anyone other than Christ at their centre
In fairness to Reginald, he didn't say that you had. The real implication was that this was generally a risk. I think - as somebody who would be ante hoc suspicious of the motives of those calling for greater use of the older forms - that that is a fair comment.
Well, in theory it doesn't. But that doesn't seem, in many cases, to stop it so doing.alan29 wrote:There are assertions made that the newer rite allows too much prominence to the wishes of the celebrant.
alan29 wrote: Clearly those who make the assertions are blind to the spectacle of men dressed in acres of lace parading around in clouds of incense.
I don't think I have ever been to one (as opposed to a Latin N.O.), but I wasn't aware that the rubrics about vestments and incensing had changed with N.O.?
I think the real point is that both "sides" are using this as cover for their real argument (rather as people do with translating "pro multis" and "homines"), which seems to be about the legitimacy of the Council itself.
Alan (or A XXIX!) please don't take anything I've said as personal criticism...I can be a bit strident (I have to restrain myself from using the caps lock button!
I don't consider my statement disgraceful - and the idea is not mine, but rather a paraphrase of him wot wrote the motu Proprio. He contends, not unreasonably I feel, that all too often the Mass we attend can be about the personality of the priest. Likewise he advocates, as a minimum, restoring a crucifix to a place of prominence on the altar as a way of focusing the people on Christ rather than placing the crucifix to one side 'so that we can see Father'. His focus is on restoring a sense of the vertical direction of the liturgy whilst not eliminating the horizontal (which could certainly appear to be lost in what we now call the extraordinary form)
The fact that some advocates of the extraordinary use are inclined to wear lace is of no real relevance, because those people too have something to learn from what the Holy Father's getting at. I've said more than once that we shouldn't judge the rightness or wrongness of this by our worst experiences of the extraordinary or ordinary form. That's how some people on the 'other side' have come to dismiss the Modern Roman Rite, too many versus of Kum by Yah at Masses celebrated by priests using inappropriate vessels and unvested - and all of the other cliches.
I didn't think I had suggested that the Missal of Pius V was fossilized in any way - it grew organically after Trent, and in turn was a codification of a liturgy that had evolved into its (then) current form over centuries. I'd be interested to know if you feel that the unity of the Church was damaged by the multiplicity of Rites pre-Trent. I think the legitimate diversity of the time probably enriched the Church as does legitimate diversity now.
"To 'reconnect' with what sustained the church for x years implies a disconnection. This surely cannot be the case if the two missals are forms of the same rite." - perhaps an example or two. Our recently re-opened school chapel has a superb altar, designed for Mass facing with the people. A number of colleagues want the chapel reordered on the grounds that "it's wrong to celebrate Mass that way now" - how can it be 'wrong' when it was 'right' for centuries across the Church, if not in Rome. I teach the kids odd bits of plainchant (usually because the leadership team want Mass to be quicker and chant is quicker!) and people say - "but the Church doesn't 'do that' anymore". There is, I think, a disconnection in the way that the modern rite is often celebrated, and frequently a prejudice that anything from before the 1960s is in some way inferior. Some great saints of the past wore fiddleback chasubles and lace, just as some great saints of the future will have worn polyester and never even have seen a maniple!
I share some of docmattc's pessimism because I have friends at both extremes of the debate. I'm staking out the middle ground! At least one of the American bishops has already announced his intention to celebrate Mass in the extraordinary form ahead of September 14th - and he's no great fan of the older form, but he is, however a canny player, as I think we should be. He can lead by example and stop any antiquarianism slipping into masses in the ex. form - if he celebrates a Mass that ticks all the boxes (dialogue/ vernacular readings etc) it makes it that much harder for Fr. Whoever to revert to the Low(est common denominator) Mass of yesteryear. And likewise it makes it more likely that Fr Whatever will raise his game in celebrating the ordinary form.
We can make this work for the Church, if we want to, but all of us have got to let go of our prejudices.
I don't consider my statement disgraceful - and the idea is not mine, but rather a paraphrase of him wot wrote the motu Proprio. He contends, not unreasonably I feel, that all too often the Mass we attend can be about the personality of the priest. Likewise he advocates, as a minimum, restoring a crucifix to a place of prominence on the altar as a way of focusing the people on Christ rather than placing the crucifix to one side 'so that we can see Father'. His focus is on restoring a sense of the vertical direction of the liturgy whilst not eliminating the horizontal (which could certainly appear to be lost in what we now call the extraordinary form)
The fact that some advocates of the extraordinary use are inclined to wear lace is of no real relevance, because those people too have something to learn from what the Holy Father's getting at. I've said more than once that we shouldn't judge the rightness or wrongness of this by our worst experiences of the extraordinary or ordinary form. That's how some people on the 'other side' have come to dismiss the Modern Roman Rite, too many versus of Kum by Yah at Masses celebrated by priests using inappropriate vessels and unvested - and all of the other cliches.
I didn't think I had suggested that the Missal of Pius V was fossilized in any way - it grew organically after Trent, and in turn was a codification of a liturgy that had evolved into its (then) current form over centuries. I'd be interested to know if you feel that the unity of the Church was damaged by the multiplicity of Rites pre-Trent. I think the legitimate diversity of the time probably enriched the Church as does legitimate diversity now.
"To 'reconnect' with what sustained the church for x years implies a disconnection. This surely cannot be the case if the two missals are forms of the same rite." - perhaps an example or two. Our recently re-opened school chapel has a superb altar, designed for Mass facing with the people. A number of colleagues want the chapel reordered on the grounds that "it's wrong to celebrate Mass that way now" - how can it be 'wrong' when it was 'right' for centuries across the Church, if not in Rome. I teach the kids odd bits of plainchant (usually because the leadership team want Mass to be quicker and chant is quicker!) and people say - "but the Church doesn't 'do that' anymore". There is, I think, a disconnection in the way that the modern rite is often celebrated, and frequently a prejudice that anything from before the 1960s is in some way inferior. Some great saints of the past wore fiddleback chasubles and lace, just as some great saints of the future will have worn polyester and never even have seen a maniple!
I share some of docmattc's pessimism because I have friends at both extremes of the debate. I'm staking out the middle ground! At least one of the American bishops has already announced his intention to celebrate Mass in the extraordinary form ahead of September 14th - and he's no great fan of the older form, but he is, however a canny player, as I think we should be. He can lead by example and stop any antiquarianism slipping into masses in the ex. form - if he celebrates a Mass that ticks all the boxes (dialogue/ vernacular readings etc) it makes it that much harder for Fr. Whoever to revert to the Low(est common denominator) Mass of yesteryear. And likewise it makes it more likely that Fr Whatever will raise his game in celebrating the ordinary form.
We can make this work for the Church, if we want to, but all of us have got to let go of our prejudices.
"On June 27, 2007, a secret[15] briefing on the document was held by Cardinal Bertone at the Apostolic Palace in Vatican City. The prelates in attendance included: Camillo Cardinal Ruini, Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco, Karl Cardinal Lehmann, Cormac Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor, Archbishop Basile Mvé Engone, Philippe Cardinal Barbarin, Jean-Pierre Cardinal Ricard, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, Telesphore Cardinal Toppo, Stanis³aw Cardinal Dziwisz, Francis Cardinal Arinze, George Cardinal Pell, Bishop Kurt Koch, Seán Cardinal O'Malley, and Archbishop Raymond Burke[16][17] According to Cardinal O'Malley, at the briefing, the Pope emphasized that his concerns laid largely with reconciling the Society of St. Pius X with the Holy See"
Not a lot to do with Catholics, then, but more to do with attracting members of the Lefevre Church.
Alan
Not a lot to do with Catholics, then, but more to do with attracting members of the Lefevre Church.
Alan
-
John Ainslie
- Posts: 395
- Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 10:23 am
I find it a little surprising that no distinction is made in Summorum Pontificum between the Solemn/Sung Mass and Low Mass forms of the 1962 rite (or 'usage'). Most people who remember them in regular use will more readily recall the Low Mass, because that was more common.
It should be noted that the Low Mass started life as a 'private' Mass with just a server and this form gradually elbowed out the Solemn Mass as the de facto standard. In the detailed Ritus Servandus prescribing the rubrics, the people present are scarcely mentioned at all. Even simple responses like 'Et cum spiritu tuo' are disembodied, being simply prefixed R/ or referred to as 'responsum', without reference to who utters them. The priest's performance of the doxology 'Per ipsum' is described in detail, but its response, the Great Amen, is not mentioned at all! (It was slightly different for a Solemn Mass, where the people are mentioned at least once, viz. to be incensed at the Offertory.)
Whatever may be said about orientation - and Pope Benedict's writings have some thought-provoking points to make - the impression given by a priest saying Mass at a distant altar with his back to the people was that it was his Mass, and their presence, let alone participation, didn't matter. The rubrics said as much: even when he turned round to greet them for the first time before the Collect with 'Dominus vobiscum', he wasn't supposed to look at them, but keep his eyes to the ground. And the story used to be told that English Jesuits, with their distinctive English pronunciation of Latin, would abbreviate that greeting to 'scum'!
So it was an exciting innovation to find in the 1970 Missal separate Orders of Mass 'with people' and 'without people'. Starting the former with the priest facing the people and greeting them formally in their own language - this was a dramatic change in communication between the priest and people, who were for the first time recognised as co-celebrants (Jungmann's pre-conciliar term) and so much better enabled to participate fully, actually and consciously.
Reginald is right in saying that the textual difference between a 1962 Low Mass and a 1970-rite weekday 'said' Mass is not great. But is 'dressing up' the old rite (oops! usage) with vernacular readings and 'dialogued' Latin really restoring the genius of the pre-conciliar Roman liturgy?
The pre-conciliar Solemn Mass, or the 'Missa cantata' - now there was a liturgy in which, with a bit of effort, the people as well as the choir could take their sung part. It was a great shame that, in defending the Solemn Mass against liturgical reform in the 1950s, but grudgingly allowing some liturgical development in Low Masses ('dialogue' Mass, use of vernacular hymns), the then Congregation of Rites succeeded only in giving more scope and therefore emphasis to the latter to the detriment of the former. We are still suffering from that. Are we going to continue to make a music-less liturgy the norm?
Josef Andreas Jungmann wrote about 1965: "We have done little more than lurch from one makeshift to the next. It will be for the reform initiated by the Second Vatican Council to devise a congregational Mass that is both correct in its form and meaningful to the people of our time."
Has the Church just introduced a new spasm of "lurching"?
It should be noted that the Low Mass started life as a 'private' Mass with just a server and this form gradually elbowed out the Solemn Mass as the de facto standard. In the detailed Ritus Servandus prescribing the rubrics, the people present are scarcely mentioned at all. Even simple responses like 'Et cum spiritu tuo' are disembodied, being simply prefixed R/ or referred to as 'responsum', without reference to who utters them. The priest's performance of the doxology 'Per ipsum' is described in detail, but its response, the Great Amen, is not mentioned at all! (It was slightly different for a Solemn Mass, where the people are mentioned at least once, viz. to be incensed at the Offertory.)
Whatever may be said about orientation - and Pope Benedict's writings have some thought-provoking points to make - the impression given by a priest saying Mass at a distant altar with his back to the people was that it was his Mass, and their presence, let alone participation, didn't matter. The rubrics said as much: even when he turned round to greet them for the first time before the Collect with 'Dominus vobiscum', he wasn't supposed to look at them, but keep his eyes to the ground. And the story used to be told that English Jesuits, with their distinctive English pronunciation of Latin, would abbreviate that greeting to 'scum'!
So it was an exciting innovation to find in the 1970 Missal separate Orders of Mass 'with people' and 'without people'. Starting the former with the priest facing the people and greeting them formally in their own language - this was a dramatic change in communication between the priest and people, who were for the first time recognised as co-celebrants (Jungmann's pre-conciliar term) and so much better enabled to participate fully, actually and consciously.
Reginald is right in saying that the textual difference between a 1962 Low Mass and a 1970-rite weekday 'said' Mass is not great. But is 'dressing up' the old rite (oops! usage) with vernacular readings and 'dialogued' Latin really restoring the genius of the pre-conciliar Roman liturgy?
The pre-conciliar Solemn Mass, or the 'Missa cantata' - now there was a liturgy in which, with a bit of effort, the people as well as the choir could take their sung part. It was a great shame that, in defending the Solemn Mass against liturgical reform in the 1950s, but grudgingly allowing some liturgical development in Low Masses ('dialogue' Mass, use of vernacular hymns), the then Congregation of Rites succeeded only in giving more scope and therefore emphasis to the latter to the detriment of the former. We are still suffering from that. Are we going to continue to make a music-less liturgy the norm?
Josef Andreas Jungmann wrote about 1965: "We have done little more than lurch from one makeshift to the next. It will be for the reform initiated by the Second Vatican Council to devise a congregational Mass that is both correct in its form and meaningful to the people of our time."
Has the Church just introduced a new spasm of "lurching"?
In Bugnini's account of the Liturgical Reform he explicitly states that one of their intentions was to do away with the Low Mass as Missa Normativa and for the Missa Cantata to take its place as the normative Mass. Now, I'm a good few years too young to have experienced it as regular spiritual fare, but I'd guess that it was a good call on their part. John rightly hints at the Low Mass mentality still prevailing now, nearly 40 years after it was supposedly laid to rest.
From your previous postings it seems that you've read B XVI's works - it doesn't seem to me that he wants the Low Mass back, celebrated as it once was. He applauds the moving of the altars to the crossing so that the priest is more recognisably leading his congregation Eastwards and is not so distant, advocates the use of the vernacular, recommends that at least the beginning of each paragraph in the silent prayers should be said loudly enough to be heard so that they can be followed by the congregation.
So from the middle ground, given that this is happening come what may, I would offer to sing, and round up some mates too, so that it's not Low Mass because that's all that we can muster. I would support the priest that wants the readings in the vernacular when potentially the more entrenched members of the congregation are resistant to the idea.
I expect that, in the course of this pontificate, there will be a fair amount of activity at Ecclesia Dei. The people being appointed to it by B XVI are not liturgical dinosaurs, but trad Novus Ordo types with occasional leanings to the extraordinary form (much like B XVI himself). I can only see this going one way - synthesis.
Alan - SSPX is thought to have a million members, the worldwide Church numbers over 1 billion. With that kind of Maths there's only one way for the Good Shepherd to go...
From your previous postings it seems that you've read B XVI's works - it doesn't seem to me that he wants the Low Mass back, celebrated as it once was. He applauds the moving of the altars to the crossing so that the priest is more recognisably leading his congregation Eastwards and is not so distant, advocates the use of the vernacular, recommends that at least the beginning of each paragraph in the silent prayers should be said loudly enough to be heard so that they can be followed by the congregation.
So from the middle ground, given that this is happening come what may, I would offer to sing, and round up some mates too, so that it's not Low Mass because that's all that we can muster. I would support the priest that wants the readings in the vernacular when potentially the more entrenched members of the congregation are resistant to the idea.
I expect that, in the course of this pontificate, there will be a fair amount of activity at Ecclesia Dei. The people being appointed to it by B XVI are not liturgical dinosaurs, but trad Novus Ordo types with occasional leanings to the extraordinary form (much like B XVI himself). I can only see this going one way - synthesis.
Alan - SSPX is thought to have a million members, the worldwide Church numbers over 1 billion. With that kind of Maths there's only one way for the Good Shepherd to go...
Nick Baty wrote:One doesn't even need to read to read these many documents to understand the liturgical/dramatic sense of the people singing the Gospel Greeting and Eucharistic Acclamations. But to suggest this at one or two cathedrals would be lead to expressions of horror and disgust.
Four pieces which should be sung by the people – according to my maths that leaves upwards of six pieces which can be selected from the choral repertoire if so desired. But pop along to [moderated] cathedral any Sunday at 9.30am and you can bet you won't be allowed to sing the Sanctus.
I'm not sure that attacking the liturgical practices of one place of worship is really the way to further our understanding of the place of music in the liturgy.
As in many cases, taking a broader view of the context in which a particular action takes place, helps to shed some light and understanding.
Let me place this in context.
At Leeds Cathedral, Mass is sung seven times a week. At five of these, the Sanctus is sung 'congregationally.' Using the premise of progressive solemnity, the principal Masses on Sunday have the Sanctus sung by the choir. Whilst I appreciate that many may either not like this pattern, or disagree with it, it is a perfectly valid musical arrangement. (See http://www.musicasacra.com/pdf/choralsanctus.pdf or http://www.ceciliaschola.org/notes/bene ... _Permitted for a rehearsal of the various arguments over the permissiveness of a choral Sanctus.)
As well as placing this musical item in the context of sung liturgies throughout the week, I would like to outline, strange as it seems to some on this board, that it is indeed possible for choir and congregation to both play their appropriate roles in the same liturgy. A brief outline below should convince that here at Leeds, we follow the ritual books and requirements for authentic celebrations of the Roman liturgy
Introit - sung by the choir
Entrance Hymn - Sung by the choir & congregation
Greeting & Penitential rite - Sung by Priest, People & Congregation
Gloria - Sung by the Choir
Responsorial Psalm - Sung by the cantor/ congregation
Gospel Acclamation - sung by the choir & congregation (where does this term 'Gospel Greeting' come from?)
Creed - Sung by the choir & congregation
Preparation of the Gifts - Choir motet
Preface dialogue - Sung by Priest, People & Congregation
Sanctus - Sung by choir & congregation on weekdays and diocesan celebrations, and by the choir alone on Sunday principal masses.
Memorial Acclamation - Sung by the choir & congregation
Great Amen - Sung by the choir & congregation
Agnus Dei - Sung by the choir
Communion Antiphon - Sung by the choir
Hymn of Thanksgiving - Sung by the choir & congregation
Blessing and Dismissal - Sung by Priest, People & Congregation
I'm not going to resort to a numerical analysis, but I would think that it is clear from the above, that it can hardly be said that the congregation are silenced at such a Mass!
Again, whilst this model might not be to everyone’s taste, I would please respectively caution against direct attacks.
I am one of those who has sometimes questioned the use of choirs. However, it is not choirs, per se that I have problems with, but the atrocious level of performance that all too often detracts from the liturgy. There are times when the old silent Tridentine Low Mass would be preferable. And that is saying something who remembers those days with no sense of nostalgia at all.
Alan
Alan
Reginald wrote:about putting Christ back at the centre of the liturgical action
I'm not convinced that Christ is the centre of the liturgy, given that the first prayer addressed to Christ comes well into the communion rite (Lord Jesus Christ, son of the living God...) and pretty much everything before that is addressed to the Father. (OK, there are some Lent Gospel Acclamations as an exception!)
Benevenio.
-
presbyter
- Posts: 1651
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 8:21 pm
- Parish / Diocese: youknowalready
- Location: elsewhere
Benevenio wrote:Reginald wrote:about putting Christ back at the centre of the liturgical action
I'm not convinced that Christ is the centre of the liturgy, given that the first prayer addressed to Christ comes well into the communion rite (Lord Jesus Christ, son of the living God...) and pretty much everything before that is addressed to the Father. (OK, there are some Lent Gospel Acclamations as an exception!)
I think we should understand "centre" as the action of Christ as High Priest - One mediator between God and man(kind) - "no one can come to the Father except through me" etc... See the Catechism for basic theology of the Liturgy.
Chris wrote:...whilst this model might not be to everyone’s taste, I would please respectively caution against direct attacks.
Absolutely. Remarks of this kind contravene our forum rules and will be modded.
musicus - moderator, Liturgy Matters
blog
blog
Nick Baty wrote:musicus wrote:Chris wrote:...I would please respectively caution against direct attacks.
Absolutely. Remarks of this kind contravene our forum rules and will be modded.
Sorry to contradict you Musicus but I did not engage in direct or personal attack. I have been misquoted. I did not say: "that the congregation are silenced at such a Mass!"
I saidpop along to Leeds cathedral any Sunday at 9.30am and you can bet you won't be allowed to sing the Sanctus.
Hmm. I'm not sure if you can 'flame' a building (i.e. Leeds cathedral), but, after careful thought, I decided that this specific reference did contravene our Rule 1. Feel free to take it up with Admin if you wish; I will cheerfully abide by his decision.
I am more certain, however, that you are off-topic: this thread is for discussion of the latest papal Motu Proprio. There are other threads already running where we can and do discuss cathedral liturgy.
musicus - moderator, Liturgy Matters
blog
blog
-
Petrasancta
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:04 am
Perhaps a link can be made however to the author of the Motu Proprio. In that wonderful essay on Church Music, "In the Presence of Angels I will sing", the then Cardinal Ratzinger states:
"As a matter of fact, the alleged acclamatory character of the Sanctus, to which only the congregation could do justice, is totally unfounded. In the entire liturgical tradition of East and West, the preface always concludes with a reference to the heavenly liturgy and invites the assembled congregation to join in the hymn of heavenly choirs. "
He follows this up with:
"And when in this congregation a choir exists, which can draw the congregation into the cosmic praise and into the wide open space of heaven and earth more strongly than the congregation's own stammering is able to do, then precisely in that moment the delegated, representative function of the choir is especially appropriate and fitting."
http://www.adoremus.org/10-12-96-Ratzi.html
"As a matter of fact, the alleged acclamatory character of the Sanctus, to which only the congregation could do justice, is totally unfounded. In the entire liturgical tradition of East and West, the preface always concludes with a reference to the heavenly liturgy and invites the assembled congregation to join in the hymn of heavenly choirs. "
He follows this up with:
"And when in this congregation a choir exists, which can draw the congregation into the cosmic praise and into the wide open space of heaven and earth more strongly than the congregation's own stammering is able to do, then precisely in that moment the delegated, representative function of the choir is especially appropriate and fitting."
http://www.adoremus.org/10-12-96-Ratzi.html
Oh dear, Nick. You have pretty well expressed my own feelings on this. What with this matter and the recent unnecessary slaps in the face to our separated brethren, this has become a church that I no longer feel a part of. There seems to be a denial of the work of the Holy Spirit in the Council and in the Church.
People seem to be rushing into a comfort zone where the Liturgy can no longer challenge us because we don't understand it (most of the OT will not even be heard under the medieval rite, which was one of its many deficiencies) and where we can insult our fellow Christians, safe in the knowledge that we've got it right folks. I well remember when the Mass first went into English one middle aged friend of my parents leaving the church because "Now I know what it means, I don't believe it."
I fear it is no good referring to the actions of "one man," as there are those who hold a theology of the church where every pronouncement is assumed to be infallible unless proven otherwise, even when it is on a matter of which he has precious little personal knowledge, viz, parish liturgical music. How long was he a Vatican apparatchik?
Alan
People seem to be rushing into a comfort zone where the Liturgy can no longer challenge us because we don't understand it (most of the OT will not even be heard under the medieval rite, which was one of its many deficiencies) and where we can insult our fellow Christians, safe in the knowledge that we've got it right folks. I well remember when the Mass first went into English one middle aged friend of my parents leaving the church because "Now I know what it means, I don't believe it."
I fear it is no good referring to the actions of "one man," as there are those who hold a theology of the church where every pronouncement is assumed to be infallible unless proven otherwise, even when it is on a matter of which he has precious little personal knowledge, viz, parish liturgical music. How long was he a Vatican apparatchik?
Alan