Fr. Z's Blog

From a reader:

a new tlm has begun in my town and some newcomers have complained about inaudibility and wanting to hear every prayer in order to better understand.  those in charge have put a mic on the priest and now, all is audible; the priest does not turn it off even thru the canon.  is this permissible? 

secondly, most of the newcomers are used to the NO and so want to respond in a more "dialogue" fashion, but recite not only the server’s responses, but the gloria, pater noster and agnus dei as well.  what is the best way to address this problem?

As far as I know, there is nothing prohibiting the use of a microphone during Mass even during the Canon.  There was, even before the Council, a 1958 instruction which included a blurb about microphones.  Cf. Instructio de Musica Sacra et Sacra Liturgia.

That said, there are rubrics in the older form of Mass which indicate those parts of Mass to be said silently, that is in a voice quiet enough that only those immediate servers or sacred ministers are able to hear.  Using a microphone at those times of Mass would certainly violate the spirit and, it seems to me possibly the letter too, of those rubrics.

I think great care should be exercised in the older form of the Roman Rite not to confuse or compromise the distinction of the voices.

Using a microphone to make the Canon audible during a TLM just seems wrong.

From a reader:

I went to confession yesterday and the priest used the form "I absolve you of all your sins" instead of "I absolve you of your sins". I asked the priest and he said this was the approved English translation (I speak Swedish, my priest often uses English in the confessional since he is more familiar with that language). I read your post on the use of "forgive" instead of "absolve" and from what I gathered there I suspect that you would conclude that I received a valid sacrament (HERE). I just want to check whether I should go back to my priest or if I’m just having another attack of scruples.

What you describe does not invalidate the absolution.  Your sins are forgiven, provided the other conditions pertain.

Still, your question raises a deeper question about discipline of the sacraments in these modern times. 

Priests should not change the words of the form of absolution.  Changing the words can raise doubts in people’s minds precisely in the moment in which they are most sensitive and, at times, vulnerable to worry for the state of their immortal soul.

As far as I know, the only approved English translation – at least in the USA – for the modern form of absolution is (with my emphasis):

"God, the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of his Son has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."

If you hear it in English, this is what you should hear… at least the end part.

From a reader:

A local parish has a Spanish-language Mass on Monday night, but uses Sunday’s liturgy.  Is this ever allowed, even with a dispensation?  If so, would it fulfill one’s Sunday obligation?  It seems very strange to me.

When there is no saint or other feast celebrated during the week days, you can use the previous Sunday’s Mass formulary, though you wouldn’t use the Gloria or Creed or Sunday Preface and you use the proper readings assigned for that week day.

However, you don’t fulfill your Sunday Mass obligation on Monday, right?  You fulfill your Sunday obligation on Sunday, or the Saturday evening which – liturgically speaking – is already considered to be Sunday.

From a reader:

I have a question about the validity of the consecration.  I attended two NO Masses this week and as each priest said, "…broke the bread…", they broke the bread with an audible crack.  One priest held the two halves close together for the elevation so that It looked unbroken; the other priest lifted one half in each hand for the elevation, with his arms spread wide apart, never bringing them together above his head.
 
This same priest who split the Host also didn’t lay his hands over the gifts.  I think this is called the Epiclesis, isn’t this a "must"?

What you saw were two grave liturgical abuses, but they did not make the consecration invalid.

In the case of the premature breaking of the Host, the priests probably imbibed during the "silly season" of liturgical experimentation the notion that we had to strive to make Mass "meaningful".  That meant that the priest was to "act out" the actions of the Last Supper he was describing via the words of the Eucharistic Prayer.  In any event this is a liturgical abuse.  There is a specific time, clear in the long history of the Roman Rite, clear in the rubrics, when the Host is to be broken.  If this priest is an assistant, you might ask the pastor what is going on.  If he is the pastor, after asking him about this with cheerful respect, you might direct your concerns to the bishop.

As for the other, I am assuming that the priest said the words of the epiclesis but did not extend his hands.   That is also a liturgical abuse, but it does not make the consecration invalid.  What I find odd is that he wanted to use an extravagant gesture in regard to the Host, but did not when it came to a rather drammatic gesture actually prescribed in the rubrics.