From a reader…
QUAERUNTUR:
An elderly priest always says the Canon in such a way that he is completely inaudible, he merely moves his lips. Do the rubrics require the Canon to be said audibly, if so, would his Mass be invalid?
The Canon is to be recited “secretly”.
In the 1962 Missale Romanum, “secretly” means secreto, not mentally, silently, or merely internally. The priest must actually pronounce the words, with lips and voice, so that he hears himself, while those around him do not hear him.
A rubric gives the principle explicitly:
Quae vero secreto dicenda sunt, ita pronuntiet, ut ipsemet se audiat, et a circumstantibus non audiatur. … Those things which are to be said secretly are to be pronounced in such a way that he himself hears himself, and that they are not heard by those standing around.
So the Roman Canon is “silent” only from the standpoint of the people. It is really a low vocal recitation, deliberately articulated. The priest is praying the Canon aloud enough for himself, not aloud enough for the congregation.
The rubric for the Canon itself says that after the Preface the priest begins the Canon “secreto dicens: Te igitur, saying secretly: Te igitur.” Even the words of consecration are pronounced carefully, not mentally: the Missal says the priest pronounces them distincte et attente, “distinctly and attentively,” over the Host, and attente et continuate, “attentively and continuously,” over the chalice.
The main “voices” the priest uses are these:
1. Vox clara, the clear voice. This is audible to those nearby and, in Low Mass, is used for the parts the Missal lists as said clara voce, for example the beginning prayers, Introit, Kyrie, Gloria, collects, readings, Creed, Preface, Sanctus, etc. The Missal says these must be pronounced distinctly and fittingly, neither too fast nor too slowly, neither too loud nor too low.
2. Vox secreta, the secret or low voice. This is the voice used for the Canon and for many priestly prayers, including the Offertory prayers and other prayers marked secreto. It is audible to the celebrant himself, ordinarily inaudible to the people. In the Low Mass list, after the parts assigned to the clear voice, the Missal adds simply: Cetera dicuntur secreto, “The rest are said secretly.” It is possible that a server or deacon close by will hear this level of voice.
3. The sung voice, in Missa cantata or Missa solemnis. In sung Mass, the celebrant sings certain parts: Dominus vobiscum, the orations, the Preface dialogue and Preface, the introduction to the Pater noster, and other prescribed chants. The 1962 rubrics distinguish these sung parts from the parts said secretly.
In practical terms: at a 1962 Low Mass you hear the Preface and Sanctus, then the altar falls into the “silence” of the Canon. The priest is still speaking, but in the secreto voice. You may hear a murmur near the altar, especially in a small chapel, but the rubric does not intend the Canon to be proclaimed to the nave. The “secret” is therefore liturgical and acoustic, not psychological.
Back in the day, moral theologians agreed that it would be grave sin to recite the whole of the Canon, or just the words of consecration, aloud, that is in the clara or conveniens vox, rather than secrete, with the submissa vox. The Council of Trent went so far as to say that if a priest didn’t use the submissa vox, then anathema sit and that act was “damnandum”.
On the other hand, were the priest not to pronounce the words at all, physically, with breath and movement of the lips, etc., that too would be a grave sin, for he would be risking sacramental nullity, an invalid, ineffective consecration due to lack of proper form. That said, it is possible that there is some “subvocalization” going on. However, the priest risks invalidity by not saying the words, especially of the consecrations, physically, not merely mentally.
A bonus question, he also uses the pre-55, however only has permission for the 1962. I recall an FSSP priest mentioning that all pre-55 Masses said without e, explicit permission of the Bishop are illicit, is that indeed the case? Should I simply avoid his Mass?
There are no significant differences between the pre-55 and the 1962 editions except during Holy Week and in some matters of the calendar (e.g., some additional vigils, etc.), and the lack of the name of St. Joseph during the Canon. It seems to me that using a pre-55 Missal for Mass is no big deal.
“The Council of Trent went so far as to say that if a priest didn’t use the submissa vox, then anathema sit and that act was ‘damnandum’.”
Which session/document do you have in mind, Father? I only recall Trent anathematizing those who condemned the silent Canon.
@aburch
Canon 9 from the Canons on the Mass.
“If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only; or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ, let him be anathema.”
How the arguments for ‘vox secreta’ line up is something that, at best, I could only give an AI-like concatenation about – based on material I read here – and it would not rise to the level where it seems logical that the Council would use such strong language. So, above my pay grade then.
But my wonder doesn’t end there: why would a Council which wanted to arrange things precisely, end up with a set of instructions that, even back then, would cause loads of questions and practical quandries? After all, whether others hear, and at what distance, would be very variable. I can imagine elderly priests who are speaking almost inaudibly even with a normal voice, and elderly priests who are so hard of hearing that what they believe would be their ‘vox secreta’ will be picked up by youngsters with good hearing from the other end of the church. Acoustics in churches and chapels vary widely, they may be large or very cramped, Masses may be said with or without servers, and so on. So well before the 20th century arrival of the microphone, this would casue issues every now and then. Which consideration would be most important? That the voice is low (from the perspective of the priest), or that it is distinct from the other voice(s), or that it is not audible by others (difference between servers and laity relevant or not?) And that’s before the logical extention of Fr Z.’s writing, namely what if the priest himself doesn’t know if his voice was too strong or too weak, between ‘damnamdum’ en ‘invalidity’ he’d be in a worrisome place – maybe every time he catches a cold!
So call me doubly curious… I almost wonder if some poor, probably priest, PhD student has ever written a thesis on this, though I’d hope not, for his sake.
When issues like, “What if an old priest doesn’t realize…” come up, I am reminded of the image of “straining at a gnat”.
The rubrical severity ported into Ireland and USA by Sulpicians and those trained by them probably contributed to how fast things flew apart as a wrong elements of the Liturgical Movement gained ground and then the praenotanda of the Roman Missal was changed to eliminate any reference to sin for purposeful violation of rubrics.
A slightly similar, but probably not so grave, issue I have at the TLM I assist at is that the priest never vocalizes the “Nobis quoque peccatoribus” so that we in the pews can hear it and follow where he is in the canon.
I’d always thought priests were supposed to say this bit louder for that very purpose.
Yes, the priest is supposed to raise his voice “a little” for the “Nobis quoque peccatoribus”.
“Manu dextera percutit sibi pectus, elata aliquantulum voce dicens:”