Common Sense and Mutual Enrichment

I have spoken lately of music, that is, the Sanctus divided Benedictus and the silent recitation of the Roman Canon.  I even dealt with it in my last PODCAzT (here).

With a brotherly tip of the biretta to His Hermeneuticalness o{]:¬)   I refer you again back to the blog of Fr. Hunwicke for a note about the 1st Mass of Fr. Andrew Burnham of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham.

Thus, Fr. Hunwicke:

We had examples of what the American blogosphere now calls Common Sense and Mutual Enrichment. Sanctus covered the (silent) first half of the Canon Romanus and Benedictus the second half; we were spared those horrid ‘Acclamations’ after the Consecration. At the Invitation to Communion, Bishop Andrew continued his custom of using the New ICEL translation of Ecce Agnus Dei.

Anglicanorum coetibus and Summorum Pontificum thus converge.

Benedict XVI is the Pope Christian Unity.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Common Sense and Mutual Enrichment

  1. Andrew says:

    Fr. Z:

    I was wondering where did the (judging from the picture you posted earlier today) versus populum arrangement come from? Is this something that was recently introduced by the Anglicans or is it something that has existed for a long time?

  2. Henry Edwards says:

    The Mass was celebrated ad orientem, as the Oxford Oratory has the same topographical orientation as St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.

    Otherwise, it seems to me this was a fine example of what Pope Benedict must intend by “mutual enrichment”. More, please! Bring it on.

    Now—having just endured once again the annual wreckage of the Christmas-Epiphany season in the new calendar—if only someone can find a way to “mutually enrich” the Novus Ordo calendar. ( See What Ever Happened to Epiphanytide? at The New Theological Movement.)

  3. CharlesG says:

    I don’t think one should flout the GIRM, even in a traditionalist direction, with silent canon and omitting the memorial acclamation and splitting the Sanctus. Lobbying for change is one thing, but I don’t see how one can with integrity denounce liberal liturgical abuses if one picks and chooses what rubrics to follow. Whatever happened to “say the black, do the red”?

  4. Daniel Latinus says:

    Are priests of the ordinariate allowed to continue to use the liturgy and customs they used in the CofE?

  5. Fr. Basil says:

    \\we were spared those horrid ‘Acclamations’ after the Consecration. \\

    1. Singing the Benedictus after the Words of Institution (a practice forbidden by Pius X, btw), is itself an acclamation.

    2. Without an indult, would not be using ANY part of the ICEL before its official introduction be an liturgical abuse?

  6. Fr. A.M. says:

    ’1. Singing the Benedictus after the Words of Institution (a practice forbidden by Pius X, btw), is itself an acclamation.’

    I thought this was only the case when the Gregorian settings were/are used ?

  7. Whenever the mike goes out in a modern carpeted church, it’s a silent canon. So obviously, it can’t possibly be an abuse to do it on purpose. :) If the choir’s singing away and the priest just doesn’t talk loud, it’s also a silent canon for all intents and purposes, even if the priest talks in a clear voice. (I’ve heard this done, sometimes inadvertently when the choir’s piece ran too long for the priest’s liking.)

    The only liturgical abuse would be if the choir sang along or the organist accompanied the priest during the Eucharistic Prayer. Singing an entire other part of the Mass that you’re not done with yet — that is okey-dokey, as far as I can tell.