Papal Masses as "Liturgical Paradigms"

[gwyn]

All interesting stuff. Let the reader understand... Phew!

http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.c ... digms.html

[NorthernTenor]

Starts well, goes a little awry in the final para ...

[musicus]

Not very loyal, are they? References to "JPII's abuses"...

But he makes a fair point.

[Southern Comfort]

Those who follow papal ceremonies probably use them as a measure of accord by which the liturgy must be measured.

Really? The screaming of the Cappela Sistina, now that you've fired the only man who tried to get it to become "normal" ? You must be joking, Your Holiness. And what about when you celebrate in San Pietro or St John Lateran, where you are facing the people. What then?

This means that when he decides that all communicants at papal masses will receive kneeling, or that he will celebrate Mass ad orientam in the Sistine Chapel, he is not simply doing these things because he is an antiquarian who happens to personally have a taste for them. When he celebrates ad orientam, he is saying in effect, "I am doing this to show you what you should be doing." This should give some ammunition to priests or bishops who want to institute these practices in their own parishes - the pope has stated that he is intentionally setting an example that he wishes the faithful to follow.

The commentator is incorrect. BXVI has not decided that all communicants at his masses will receive kneeling. He has expressly expressed a preference, not an absolute diktat. He is on record as saying "This is what I prefer", not "This is what will happen." [JPII also expressed this preference, but it was frequently not adhered to.]

Ad orientam (notice the commentator can't spell or, more probably, doesn't know any Latin ─ it's ad orientem) is similarly expressing a personal preference, not an absolute.

I saw a very good comment on another forum recently, to the effect that what a lot of these people (maybe even the pope) have not taken into account is that the altar is the symbol of Christ in our midst. Therefore anyone facing the altar, from whatever point of the compass, is in fact facing in the same direction ─ i.e. facing Christ. You don't need to face the east.

The idea of facing east so as to be facing the direction of Christ's coming at the eschaton is an oversimplistic idea that has had its day?

[NorthernTenor]

The idea of facing east so as to be facing the direction of Christ's coming at the eschaton is an oversimplistic idea that has had its day?

I'm so glad that we've moved on from the primitive ideas of our forebears.

[mcb]

Historically, in any case, it's not true: papal Masses weren't in any meaningful sense the model for other liturgies. Papal Masses had all kinds of elaborations and accretions that (if I understand right) were trappings of earthly kingship rather than normative aspects of liturgical practice: e.g., a rite called the pregustatio, or the ritual use of trumpets.

Pontifical Masses (i.e. Masses celebrated by the bishop) on the other hand, were indeed the source and model for the parish Sunday Mass celebrated by a presbyter. But perhaps the idea of entrusting that kind of responsibility to the diocesan bishop is another primitive idea of our forbears, which we've moved on from?

[NorthernTenor]

Historically, in any case, it's not true: papal Masses weren't in any meaningful sense the model for other liturgies. Papal Masses had all kinds of elaborations and accretions that (if I understand right) were trappings of earthly kingship rather than normative aspects of liturgical practice: e.g., a rite called the pregustatio, or the ritual use of trumpets.

Pontifical Masses (i.e. Masses celebrated by the bishop) on the other hand, were indeed the source and model for the parish Sunday Mass celebrated by a presbyter. But perhaps the idea of entrusting that kind of responsibility to the diocesan bishop is another primitive idea of our forbears, which we've moved on from?

Up to a point, mcb. As Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out, the Ultramontane tendency of the last century or so has frequently led Rome to impose where it should have guided, in the interests of the organic development of the liturgy of which it is ultimately the guardian. The way in which liturgical reform was implemented after the Second Vatican Council is a good example of this problem, and the catastrophe that can result from it. That is why, now he has the responsibility for which his life has been a preparation, Pope Benedict XVI is patiently leading by example.

[keitha]

I do get a bit irritable with with some of these 'reformers of the reform' at times. In my view, the pendulum has swung far too far towards informality and slackness in many places (but not all). There has been a loss of solemnity and reverence and too much of a severance from our traditions. My impression is that these are what His Holiness is trying to restore. I do not, however, see his remarks quoted above as dictating a restoration of mass 'ad orientem' or any of the other things that are being attributed to him. That, in my view, is simply wishful thinking. I am pleased that people can exercise their wishes to go to the 1962 rite of mass if they so wish, and I would understand it if our Holy Father wished to use it himself at times, but I have no great wish to do so myself.

Instead, I would rather see the Ordinary Form done fittingly, and I believe that all that is being said is that the Papal Mass, of all masses, should be an example to all of 'how to do it' (whether it is the Ordinary Form, or the Extraordinary Form).

Finally, there seems to be a growing habit of looking at the Extraordinary Form through rose-tinted spectacles. I can remember many bad habits that crept into the celebration of the extraordinary form that, hopefully, we will never see again, just as some have crept into the celebration of the Ordinary Form. I would like to see both forms done as well as possible.

[NorthernTenor]

I would like to see both forms done as well as possible.

Hear him!

[VML]

Finally, there seems to be a growing habit of looking at the Extraordinary Form through rose-tinted spectacles. I can remember many bad habits that crept into the celebration of the extraordinary form that, hopefully, we will never see again,

..like a whole Mass said in eleven minutes on a weekday morning. I think that was the record..And there would often be two Masses being offered simultaneously on altars only feet apart.

[NorthernTenor]

Finally, there seems to be a growing habit of looking at the Extraordinary Form through rose-tinted spectacles. I can remember many bad habits that crept into the celebration of the extraordinary form that, hopefully, we will never see again,

..like a whole Mass said in eleven minutes on a weekday morning. I think that was the record..And there would often be two Masses being offered simultaneously on altars only feet apart.

Actually, I'm reasonably well acquainted with the opinions of the "Reform of the Reform" people, and recognition of the problems of liturgical practice tend to chime with those of the Liturgical Movement, whose efforts led to incremental reform over the century preceding the Council, and whose ideas greatly influenced those of Conciliar participants such as the present Pope. I doubt you would find the problems you describe in those parishes that now celebrate both forms.

[Peter]

Pontifical Masses (i.e. Masses celebrated by the bishop) on the other hand, were indeed the source and model for the parish Sunday Mass celebrated by a presbyter.

The Mass I went to last Sunday was celebrated by the local Bishop in his cathedral, where the music comprised: Be Still for the Presence, Salazar Gloria (paraphrased text with Spanish refrain), Celtic Alleluia (no verse), The Servant King, Gathering Mass Sanctus (but spoken Memorial Acclamations and Great Amen), Lamb of God (can't remember which setting), Living Lord and Lord of the Dance. Presumably we are now to take this as the norm for all our Sunday Masses and forget all that plainchant and Palestrina nonsense?

[keitha]

If I may say so, I think you have misunderstood MCB's comment. In former times, the papal mass was not, and (largely because of the insertions of the many 'extras' for the pope) could not have been, the model for parish worship. Particularly as most parishes would, at most, have one 'Missa Cantata' (rather than High Mass) each week and many low masses with no music or anything else. I think MCB was saying that the pontifical high mass would then have been the model rather than the papal mass.

As for now, my view is that mass with the diocesan bishop should still be an example of 'best practice'. Whether or not it always is, of course, is an entirely different matter!

Clearly our Holy Father believes that papal masses in the Ordinary Form should be similar examples of best practice (which, I would have thought, was unarguable). It would be interesting to see whether, if the Pope were to have a papal mass in the Extraordinary Form, he would go back to the full form of Papal Mass of the old style. I suspect that it will not happen under Benedict XVI, but I have been wrong before!

[johnquinn39]

Pontifical Masses (i.e. Masses celebrated by the bishop) on the other hand, were indeed the source and model for the parish Sunday Mass celebrated by a presbyter.

The Mass I went to last Sunday was celebrated by the local Bishop in his cathedral, where the music comprised: Be Still for the Presence, Salazar Gloria (paraphrased text with Spanish refrain), Celtic Alleluia (no verse), The Servant King, Gathering Mass Sanctus (but spoken Memorial Acclamations and Great Amen), Lamb of God (can't remember which setting), Living Lord and Lord of the Dance. Presumably we are now to take this as the norm for all our Sunday Masses and forget all that plainchant and Palestrina nonsense?

I think that it is time to move on from the Salazar Gloria, and we will be getting different versions of the Sanctus/Memorial soon. However, the above music is stuff wot people sing - and 'Be still' is Scripture (Cf 'Burning bush'). People relate to this.

For many people, Palestrina is indeed nonsense - in the sense that (whatever the aesthetic qualities) it does not make sense. Living Lord does make sense, and has an appealing tune. Much plainchant is unsingable, meandering, and plain bloody boring.

[NorthernTenor]

For many people, Palestrina is indeed nonsense - in the sense that (whatever the aesthetic qualities) it does not make sense. Living Lord does make sense, and has an appealing tune. Much plainchant is unsingable, meandering, and plain bloody boring.

How sad, and how far from our liturgical tradition, and the wishes of the Council Fathers.