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.
