From a reader:
I’d value your opinion. I attended Mass today at a parish run by a new, quite traditional community of priests that regularly uses the Extraordinary Form. Today they celebrated a reverent Ordinary Form Mass but the priest brought in two things common to the EF.
First, at the Gloria (which was chanted in Latin from Mass VIII) the priest sat down, as did everyone else. Should a short Gloria be sung seated?
Second, the Benedictus was choral and rather long, and the priest started the Eucharistic Prayer silently and was well along by the time the Benedictus was over. Is this allowed or advisable in the EF?
Ad 1ª: I guess that depends on how short short is. That is a bit subjective. Frankly, I think any chant from Mass VIII is a little long, but I don’t prefer Mass VIII. On the other hand, the Mass of Creation and some other settings seems, to me, interminable. I’ll take Mass VIII any day in that case. But, for the sitting down…. I guess you have to make the call. The rubrics indicate that the Gloria is sung standing. On the other hand, if the whole congregation isn’t singing, and the Gloria (or any other chant for Mass) is long-ish, then I see nothing wrong with having people sit (including the celebrant).
This is where the “mutual enrichment” of the two forms can be helpful. Sung Masses were around a long time before the Novus Ordo. There were centuries to work out the best way to do things and the old ways seemed to work pretty well.
Ad 2ª: You mention the Benedictus. Could it be you meant the Sanctus? In the practice of the Extraordinary Form, the priest, having sung the Preface, would recite the Sanctus quietly while the schola or other choir began the sung version. Once the priest was done with the Sanctus, he moved straight into the Canon, since the Preface, Sanctus and Canon all form a whole. If the musical setting was longer, as is the case with many polyphonic and orchestral settings, once the Sanctus was concluded the choir would stop when they came to the Benedictus. They would begin the Benedictus after the two-fold consecration.
Again, for the Ordinary Form…. I think we can take a clue from the “mutual enrichment” desired by Pope Benedict. Before his election he even mused in his writings about the usefulness of having a silent Canon from time to time in the Novus Ordo.
Keep in mind that in the older form of Holy Mass, it was essential that the priest, if no one else, said all the texts. In the Novus Ordo it is foreseen that, if other people are present, many of the texts are said by priest and people together (e.g. Gloria, Sanctus/Benedictus).
For the Ordinary Form, the Novus Ordo, the rubrics indicate that there should be no music during the Eucharistic Prayer. I have firmly in mind the piano bar style rubbish that tinkled from the ivories in during the consecration in the chapel of our seminary… piano… an absurd instrument for a church… but I digress.
That brings me to another point. I wonder, now as I write this, whether the prohibition of music during the Eucharistic Prayer wasn’t aimed at prohibiting musical accompaniment of the Eucharistic Prayer itself. Could it be that the prohibition of music during the Eucharistic Prayer doesn’t extend to the Sanctus/Benedictus? Hmmmm… I wonder.
In any event, in the OF if there is to be a sung Sanctus/Benedictus (undivided), everything generally comes to a halt and the priest/bishop stands at the altar waiting for it to conclude… which can take while when they were written by Haydn.
I have a great memory of doing something like this. For an orchestral Mass in the Novus Ordo the practice in the place was to begin the Canon quietly as the orchestra and choir did their thing, as in the older form. However, in this case, after the consecration the Benedictus was quite a bit longer than the text of the rest of the Canon. Thus, there I stood, deacon by my side, waiting for the conclusion of the Benedictus. The choir sang, the fiddles scraped, the horns blew… Beeeenediiiiiiictus…. tus…. tus…. qui veeeeeeeenit… venit venit veeeeeenit, in nomine Doooooooooooooominiiiiiii…. qui venit qui venit qui venit….. You get the idea. After about the 300th “qui venit“, I heard the deacon mutter, “I wish he’d hurry up and get here.”
The point is, the division of the Sanctus/Benedictus was done to help keep the Mass a reasonable length and still have the glorious music the liturgy and the people deserve.
We should be willing to dig into the treasury of the Church’s sacred music and then apply common sense to its use. If it is a little long, sit down. If it is going to be quite long, get on with the Canon…. unless of course people don’t mind Mass getting pretty long.
Again, I am all for saying… singing the black and doing the red. At the same time, I am also for common sense and paying attention to the mutual enrichment the Holy Father desired, which must go beyond issues of text and calendars. Priests and liturgists of the liberal stripe do all sort of goofy things that are not in keeping with either the rubrics of the Ordinary Form or our tradition. Surely what our ancestors… remember, this is all within living memory… did for so long is not wicked or contumacious. The former seems truly out of bounds to me. The later, well… taking a clue from the Roman Pontiff… I think we have to use some common sense.
It sure would be helpful to have some of this loosened up a bit, and get some direction from Rome on these matters of mutual enrichment…. gravitational pull. But I digress.
To use our great treasury of music, written for the Roman Rite, we have to also consider what our forebears did to accommodate that music within our sacred rites. They had it worked out.
All these things having been said: If you are in doubt, use the Extraordinary Form for some occasions when the music seems more appropriate for it. It is a shame to have to sequester it that way, for I believe that the great flexibility permitted for music in the Novus Ordo was intended for the vast spectrum of truly sacred artistic music, not so much most of the rubbish that has passed for liturgical music for the last decades.
Nevertheless, it just seems that the more the Ordinary Form is adjusted in the direction of the Extraordinary Form, the better we are able to seek – in the Ordinary Form – that continuity within our tradition which is of such critical importance today.
Loading ...
Re: Silent Canon in the OF
A rubric printed just below the Sanctus in the current Roman Missal/Sacramentary states the following:
“In all Masses the priest may say the eucharistic prayer in an audible voice.” (pg 373) – which implies that the preference was for the EP to be said silently.
Is this rubric printed in non-USA English language missals ?
However, this rubric is deleted from the upcoming 3rd edition which means 2011 is the last year that a priest can recite the EP in a low voice in the OF.
Father G: Interesting!
Unfortunately I find the discussion rather confusing. This “mutual enrichment” stuff leaves me cold, I see it as political correctness to try and make SP more palatable to those who do not like it. I can see how the Usus Antiquor rubrics could improve the OF (Novus Ordo Missae, Paulus VI) particularly by way of correcting abuses and eliminating novelties. I have problems with how the OF could “enrich” the Tridentine Gregorian rite. If Fr Z could offer some concrete examples of how this could apply I would be obliged, it is beyond me.
Fr. G.,
That rubric in the current English missal is odd, and does not reflect the 1975 edition of the Missale Romanum, p. 392, which is identical to the rubric in the new Missale Romanum, p. 517. Neither version has nothing on audible voices, only a rubric on singing. Here is the Latin rubric of those Missals: “In omnibus Missis licet sacerdoti celebranti illas partes Precis eucharisticae cantare, quae in Missis concelebratis cantari possunt.”
I suspect that that English rubric about audible voice is a relic from the 1970 1st edition (probably omitted in the emendated 1971 version of the first edition), where it was a left over from legislation concerning the Tridentine Missal in the 1960s. If it ever existed in the Latin original at all.
Whether one likes it or not, the rubrics of the 1975 Missale (which I have to hand), seem to exclude quiet recitation of the Eucharistic Prayer covered by singing. Rubric 55h on p. 41 of the IGMR reads: Prex eucharistica exigit, ut omnes reverentia ex silentio eam auscultent, eandem vero participent per acclamationes in ipso ritu praevisis. “Ex silentio” excludes singing, I should think. And this rubric becomes nuggatory if the priest speaks so softly as not to be heard.
The deacon’s comment after the multiple ‘qui venits’ made me laugh out loud. It can’t have been easy to keep a straight face after hearing that! On the subject of the ‘Sanctus’ I have never been able to find out why, after always falling to ones knees at the first ‘Sanctus’, it was then changed to standing until the end. It was never explained at the time.
I think whatever mutual enrichment takes places should take place within the bounds of the rubrics, until someone with the authority to change the liturgy does so. Pope Benedict’s words about mutual enrichment appear in his letter to the bishops, not in the motu proprio itself, so while they give us an insight into the mind of the pope, they do not constitute any sort of clear legislation:
“For that matter, the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching: new Saints and some of the new Prefaces can and should be inserted in the old Missal. The “Ecclesia Dei” Commission, in contact with various bodies devoted to the usus antiquior, will study the practical possibilities in this regard. The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage. The most sure guarantee that the Missal of Paul VI can unite parish communities and be loved by them consists in its being celebrated with great reverence in harmony with the liturgical directives. This will bring out the spiritual richness and the theological depth of this Missal.”
He only explicitly mentions change occuring to the Extraordinary Form Missal, by way of adding new saints and prefaces. When he mentions the Ordinary Form, he is far more conservative. To which “liturgical directives” are we to suppose he is referring? It sounds to me like he wants the Ordinary Form celebrated “by the book”, which is the first step towards celebrating it with proper reverence and demonstrating sacrality.
I think the time for seeking out loopholes is passed.
The Gloria should be sung (by choir or by all) standing. (cf. GIRM 43) If individuals cannot stand that long (as is sometimes the case during long Gospel readings), the pastoral thing to do is to let those people sit. But I wouldn’t introduce a “sitting” Gloria and claim “mutual enrichment”.
The same goes for the Eucharistic Prayer. GIRM 30 and 32 make it clear that a) the Eucharistic Prayer is a “presidential prayer”, and that b) presidential prayers, by nature, are to be “spoken in a loud and clear voice.”
The last thing we need is for priests to say that they “say the black” and “do the red” while actually saying and doing the black and red from another book. I don’t go around repeating the “Domine, non sum dignus…” two more times at the OF.
That being said, what a beautiful reform it would be if the “Benedictus” were permitted as a response to “Mysterium fidei!”
The problem is that, if you think that in the OF the Canon is to be recited aloud (or, even if you consider that recitation aloud is not mandatory, if you opt to recite the Canon aloud in the OF, say, because the priest is inclined to imitate the praxis of the Roman Court), then the idea of breaking up the Sanctus/Benedictus and of the priest starting the Canon after reading the Sanctus/Benedictus in a low voice and while while the choir still sings the Sanctus sinks, because surely the priest will not pronounce the Canon aloud while the choir is still singing. The old praxis is only feasible with a silent Canon.
* * *
Mr. Pynian,
Agreed! Actually, the “Ottavianni intervention” points out that the acclamations in response to “Mysterium Fidei” are innapropriate. In “Mortem tuam annuntiamus, Domine, et tuam ressurectionem confitemur, donec venias”, the “donec venias”, the reference to the awaiting for the Lord’s (second) Coming, is utterly inadequate considering the moment. It is innapropriate because it fails to acknowledge the Eucharistic Presence, the Eucharistic Coming, of the Lord, Who makes Himself substantially present in the Eucharist, that is, really and trully present. So, instead of asking for the Second Coming at that moment, as if the Eucharistic Presence was not equally substantial as a Presence of the Lord, the God-with-us, in our midst, in his body, blood, soul and Divinity of the Lord, we should recognize expressly the Lord as he is present at that moment upon the Altar.
Thus, the old praxis of breaking up the Canon and of acclaiming the Lord with the singing of the Benedictus after the Consacration (Benedictus qui venit, instead of donec venias) was much more appropriate.
Fathers G; Thompson, OP; and Z,
What does the Latin edition of the 2000 Missal say regarding that rubric discussed above (the rubric that “permits” the Canon to be recited aloud)? Is there any rubric in the Latin, original, version of the 2000 Missal explicitly governing the question of the tone (audible/inaudible) in which the Canon is to be recited? If there is no rubric in the actual text of the Ordinary of the Mass, is there any rubric in the GRIM/praenotanda?
We in the choir would call the Masses where we sang the Gloria, Sanctus and Agnus Dei in Latin, “hybrids”. This has been done for many years, at least going back to the 1980s, when I was at Notre Dame. The priests would always sit done during the Gloria, regardless of length.
As to Prof. Basto’s comment on the Mysterium Fidei, sung in the Latin NO, I heartily agree that at the sublime moment after the Consecration, reference to the Second Coming seems completely out of place. Christ is Present.
We, for the EF, have a visiting, although regular, priest who takes the words literally of saying the EP audibly, which I assumed was an adaptation from his usual NO Mass. He only says the Low Masses, so the singing issue does not create a conflict. It is striking, however, as the other EF priests are barely audible, or say the Canon and words of Consecration silently or a mixture. All were trained at St. John Cantius.
\\piano… an absurd instrument for a church\\
Speaking as a keyboard major, I’d rather have a good quality, well-tuned, properly played piano by a competent musician than a toy spinet organ played by a left-footed organist wearing mittens, as is too often the case in so many Latin churches.
Father Basil.
The Vatican has long been against the piano in the Liturgy. St. Pius X wrote that:
“The employment of the piano is forbidden in church, as is also that of noisy or frivolous instruments such as drums, cymbals, bells and the like.
It is strictly forbidden to have bands play in church, and only in special cases with the consent of the Ordinary will it be permissible to admit wind instruments, limited in number, judiciously used, and proportioned to the size of the placeprovided the composition and accompaniment be written in grave and suitable style, and conform in all respects to that proper to the organ.” That
the piano was said not to be a “liturgical instrument” should hold today, as well. It appeals to the passions and not to reason.
Dear Prof. Basto,
As I wrote in my above post, the English Rubric in the current Roman Missal does not exist in either the 1975 Missale Romanum, nor in the 2002 Missale Romanum. Perhaps it existed in the 1970, but it was gone by 1975. As I said above my best guess is that this English rubric is a vestige of either the interim Missal of the late 1960s (when the Canon lout loud was first permitted, as I think you know) or the same kind of interim rubric crept into the 1970 Missale. There is nothing in the GIRM (or other spellings depending on the version) to suggest that the Eucharistic Prayers are only optionally out loud. I did not quote it but in the Latin general instruction of 1975 it explicitly says that orationes (which here would include the Prex Eucharistica) are to be said “voce clara.”
I went to the parish library and found a copy of the 1970 English Roman Missal/Sacramentary for the USA. The same rubric is there right under the Sanctus; however, the memorial acclamation still has to be acclaimed out loud because further on in a section titled “Acclamations”, the people should sing the memorial acclamation after the consecration.
The current Spanish Roman Missal from Mexico lacks this rubric, which makes me wonder if this rubric is only found in the USA edition.
I am very curious to know if it exists the UK edition, in other English language countries, or in any other country in general.
To be extremely honest…I fear and dread the “enrichment” of the Extraordinary From by the Novus Ordo.
Miss A., O.P.
At St. John Cantius, in the celebration of OF, the first part of the Sanctus is Sung, then the Eucharistic Prayer up to the Memorial Acclamation is chanted aloud, then the celebrant continues the Eucharistic Prayer silently while the Benedictus is sung. The priests of St. John Cantius are sticklers for the rubrics so they must feel there is a legitimate basis for the Eucharistic Prayer following the Memorial Acclamation to be done soto voce.
I think that the ‘hybrids’ that Supertradmum refers do have some good potential as far as enriching the NO. Incorporating chant also has potential to help to bring back the sense of the sacred in places where it is absent. Have witnessed the NO celebrated with great reverence and joy on occasion even with the ‘hymn sandwich’ and somewhat contemporary hymns, and other aspects however these are rare occurrences and far and few between.
Where I am laughably the ‘Sanctus’ has been sung with the ‘Agnus Dei’ only at Lent (!)…apparently some find it penitential…I know, it’s so sad you have to laugh or else you could cry…it’s a type of poverty, I think, namely, liturgical poverty, rather like a death march…It’s not about the cash (as these prevail even where there is a lot of cha-ching)…It’s about the sacred, period. One can have stunningly sacred in quite inauspicious environs…
Anyway as to the perplexing question as to whether the NO can enrich the EF? I have puzzled over this and though was raised thoroughly in the NO in all its ‘glory’ as it were, and seen maximum experimentation and innovation, I couldn’t come up with anything. I do recall that I have heard from the older generation that in the old days that while one was able to experience the sacred through the sacraments the one negative was that the homilies were often sort of rambling in comparison. This in a small out of the way place. And note that their comparative experience of what they deemed outstanding homilies, in recent times, were in a different locale where the Real Presence is still faithfully taught and practiced as well. At a reverent NO Mass there they remembered the sacred experiences of their youth, in a very positive way. This NO did incorporate significant aspects of the EF and was combined with a renowned homilist. While I suppose that the NO homilies I have heard in recent years could be said to have had a point, all manner of things were often worked in and referred to, even in front of lots of children, from reference to sexual behavior and words like “gay” to quoting practices of other religions such as Buddhism. I don’t know, all told, I guess, if offered a somewhat “rambling” homily as in the days of old, if it were given by an honest priest with integrity who loved the Church and was not ashamed that people knew it I guess I would take the rambling one to the one with the point about Buddhism…
Father Z,.
” Beeeenediiiiiiictus…. tus…. tus…. qui veeeeeeeenit… venit venit veeeeeenit, in nomine Doooooooooooooominiiiiiii…. qui venit qui venit qui venit….. You get the idea. After about the 300th “qui venit“, I heard the deacon mutter, “I wish he’d hurry up and get here.””
Was that the “Nelson Mass”, otherwise known as the Missa In Angustiis by any chance? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFM7pmMHIoM
And by Hadyn, of course.
Undeniably long, but undeniably beautiful. I wish it was used more, full orchestoral masses are so rare, I’ve yet to assist at one outside Vienna,(where they are plentiful).
I wouldn’t speak of the OF enriching the EF, but more along the lines of some of the reforms proposed by the legitimate Liturgical Movement of the preconciliar period enriching the EF. The Council definitely called for a reform, and we were getting that before Bugnini’s Consilium hijacked and wrecked the project with the Novus Ordo.
So some of the legitimate reforms I could see enriching the traditional rite are as follows:
-readings in the vernacular (for Anglophones, in the English translation of the Vulgate or at worst the Jersusalem or RSV), facing the people rather than the altar
-sung liturgy on Sundays and feasts. Get rid of Low Masses on these days, at least as the principal Mass of the day. The Mass ITSELF should be sung; hymns are ephemeral in comparison.
-allowance for vernacular in some of the Mass—I envision the Propers and the Collects particularly. Simple chant vernacular versions of the Propers are already available, and the congregation can be taught to sing these.
-allowance for the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar to be said out loud so the congregation can join the servers in the responses. This part can also be made optional (prayed in the sacristy instead, as in previous times).
-restoring a procession during the Offertory
Fr. Z,
I am pretty sure that I know where and who you might be talking about. It would seem that at SA, a certain former Anglo-Catholic deacon would get a little antsy during the Benedictus. This post is wonderful, thanks for bringing it out….
Childermass, I think you will still have to tolerate Low Mass on Sundays. There are places where the priest simply doesn’t have all the personnel he needs to offer High Mass or even Missa Cantata.
(And in my place, to my sorrow, we will not have the TLM at all starting next week, as the priest who offers it is being transferred, and there isn’t another — except for SSPX — within 300 miles. Pray for our efforts to get it back!)
Miss A., O.P.
Given the choice of a good, real piano or an electronic keyboard with a selectable ‘organ’ mode, who would rebuff either Mr. Steinway or Yamaha-san?
If the “nature” of the presidential prayers demands that the Eucharistic Prayer be recited in an audible voice, then the implication is that the traditional Roman practice is somehow “unnatural”. Therefore, this is one rubric which could surely be reworded in light of the hermeneutic of continuity.
The problem with the piano at Mass has to do with the sustain pedal . . . and the fact that it’s a percussion instrument. Too much opportunity for lounge lizard wannabes to wax groovy. And piano reductions for orchestral accompaniments are far inferior to organ reductions . . . .
But the GOOD thing about the piano from the point of view of the choir is that it IS a percussion instrument, and will keep the choir together, especially in polyphonic motets where it’s Don’t Count and You Die. And that’s the bad thing about a piano as a rehearsal instrument – you come to depend on that percussive attack of the hammers and with an organ there’s this deer in the headlights look from the choir . . . .
If the piano is played sensitively, just at the level where it’s audible to the choir, and just to support the various lines, it’s a very useful instrument. It helps to have somebody at the keyboard who can read all four vocal lines at once . . . .
And it’s certainly better than an old Hammond B or an electronic keyboard. And more affordable than a real pipe organ.
I asked a priest at a Church that does Novus Ordo orchestral Masses whether the rubrics permitted the Novus Ordo to be celebrated the way they do: splitting the Sanctus/Benedictus, and the canon only audible between the “epiklesis” and the consecration. Their Novus Ordo orchestral masses are nearly, though not quite, enough to make me change my mind about preferring the Tridentine Mass for the rest of my life, yet they always made me feel nervous, because they took some liberties.
The pastor’s response was casual and brief. If I recall correctly, it was several years ago, he basically said that the rubrics weren’t meant to govern the situation at this particular Church. He seemed confident about what they were doing.
These were the ONLY Masses that did not follow these particular rubrics, so it was pretty clear to me that they weren’t itching to unduly “traditionalize” the Novus Ordo. It seems that the problem really was that the rubrics did not fully forsee situation in which they found themselves, so they turned to tradition to find out how to do it.
The Society of St. John Cantius has a tutorial video on how to celebrate the OF ad orientem.
The first video posted is a “Pontifical Mass celebrated according to the 1970 Sacramentary in English” : http://www.canons-regular.org/go/apostolates/ordinary-form-tutorials/
The bishop and everyone else do sit during the singing of the Gloria. The Sanctus and Benedictus used are from the “Missae in Honore Sancti Pauli” . It is beautiful to hear but quite long for those used to “Mass of Creation” or other standard fare at the average Catholic parish. The bishop then proceeds with the Roman Canon when the Sanctus has ended.
Future videos will include:
Masses using the 2011 Sacramentary in English
Masses using the 2002 Missale Romanum in Latin
The USCCB’s “Sing to the Lord” (2007) number 181 states, “it is not permitted to recite the Eucharistic Prayer inaudibly while the Sanctus is sung.” While the document is not particular law, it is an offical statement from the hierarchy, and seems to settle the matter, for now. I think…
I’m convinced that, in the ordinary form, due to the rubrics found in the GRIM (30 and 32), the priest is mandated to recite the entire Canon in a “loud and clear voice”, and that, therefore, in the ordinary form, the recitation of the eucharistic prayer in a low voice is a direct violation of the rubrics.
There may be adaptation and “enrichment” of the rite of Mass of the OF with the superior praxis of the EF as long as there is no direct violation of the rubrics. When the rubrics are silent, or when they are not clear, or when they leave open more than one way of doing something, then it is praiseworthy to do things in continuity with the ancient liturgical tradition of the Latin Church.
But when the rubrics are explicit as is the case of items 30 and 32 of the GRIM combined, then if the priest does things otherwise he is not saying the black and doing the red, but he is in direct violation of the rubrics, even if that is one rubric we don’t like.
People have the right to the liturgy as prescribed by the rubrics laid down by the Church, that is the Church’s public prayer, and “no one, not even the priest” is permitted to change anything in the rite of the Mass, but he must conform to the rubrics. Thus, the correct way, when celebrating the OF, is to conform to the rubrics, and, liking it or not, to recite the whole canon, from beggining to end, in a loud and clear voice.
“But when the rubrics are explicit as is the case of items 30 and 32 of the GRIM combined, then if the priest does things otherwise he is not saying the black and doing the red, but he is in direct violation of the rubrics, even if that is one rubric we don’t like.”
Prof. Basto,
And yet, the rubric does state in red lettering under the Sanctus : “In all Masses the priest may say the eucharistic prayer in an audible voice.” (pg 373)
A priest who decides to say the EP inaudibly would not be in violation of the rubrics because the rubric gives him that option. He would be “doing the red” as is printed.
2011 is the last year that this rubric will be in effect until the 3rd edition of the Roman Missal in English comes out. That rubric is missing in the new edition.
I don’t foresee that we will see many, if any parish priests using this option in their parishes after 40 years of an audible EP and with only a year left of this particular rubric. I think it’s more likely to be done in religious communities–of course, it depends if the celebrant is even aware of the option in the first place.