Fr. Z's Blog

This question came via e-mail:

I have seen a number of patterns of spoken congregational response in Masses in the Extraordinary Form.  Occasionally you get something like the old "Dialogue Mass", a low Mass where the congregation joins the server for many of the responses.  But not long ago at a low EF Mass I was admonished by the lady next to me in the pew when I said "et cum spiritu tuo" after the priest’s "Dominus vobiscum" — it was an almost unconscious response on my part.  She tapped me on the shoulder, scowled and hissed "shh".  I hadn’t spoken at all loudly, but clearly she felt it was wrong to respond.  Seems to me that it’s the priest’s role to decide whether the congregation responds, and to signal that somehow to the congregation.

So: when should the congregation respond vocally in a low EF Mass, or a Missa Cantata, or a High Mass?  How can priests provide guidance on this?

Ah, yes.  The Hissing Lady.  All too common in some places where the TLM is celebrated I’m afraid.

There is no hard and fast rule about vocal responses.  I think you have to go with the flow.

That said, various Popes before the Council encouraged congregational responses, the so-called "dialogue Mass".

On 3 Sept 1958 (anniversary is coming!) an extremely important document, De musica sacra, was issued by the Sacred Congregation of Rites.  This document established rules for the outward participation of the congregation in three different levels for the Missa cantata and the Missa solemnis. 

In the first, the people would also sing the liturgical responses.  In the second, they would also sing the Ordinary.  In the third, they would also sing the Proper.

De musica sacra also established rules for Low Mass in four levels of outward participation.  First, answering aloud the short responses.  Second, also saying all the responses the server would say as well as the Domine non sum dignus.  Third, also reciting with the priest celebrant his parts of the Ordinary, the Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, Our Father, etc.  Fourth, also saying the Propers, the Introit, Gradual, Offertory, Communion antiphon.

In my travels, I have seen various levels of participation.  In some places the congregation is pretty silent, leaving everything to the servers or choir.  In others, the Hissing Ladies are vigilant.  In yet others, people speak and sing without censorship.    Much will depend on what the priest wants and promotes. 

But yes, congregational responses are permitted and, in many cases, a good idea.

Personally, I prefer responses from the congregation and have no problem at all with them saying the parts pertaining to the server, and even prayers like the Gloria and Creed. 

What I do not like are the Hissing Ladies of both sexes. 

But I think you have to go with the flow.

I want to put this question, which I received via e-mail, out there to you readers.  I edited it a little.

I have been reading your blog as a "lurker" for some months now and give thanks regularly for your service through it.  I realize that you receive many, many emails and other contacts, and that you may not be able to respond but I thought to give it a try anyway.
 
To be honest, I am troubled.  I am Anglican, but over the past few years have become increasingly agitated by where the Episcopal Church is pointing itself.  [… Lots of personal stuff here… ]
 
Over the past several years as this has progressed, I have sensed a call to move toward the Roman Church, but I want to be sure that I am not just going "from" something, but "to" the Roman Church.  I have a general sense of the doctrinal, theological, and governance differences between our two Churches, but want to make sure I really understand.
 
Is there a book or series of books you can recommend?  I am currently working through a Catholic Study Bible, and the Navarre Bible Gospels.  I have added occassional use of LOTH to supplement my Daily Office (I should probably say "almost-Daily Office").  Where else can I go to understand?
 
Any time you might have to respond to this request would be greatly appreciated.

It seems to me that some of you out there may have made this journey yourselves.  You could help this fellow.

This question came up in a comment under another entry.

Some SSPX priests and some of the people in the pew have doubted the validity of the new rite of Ordination. Is this a block? Are the priests who hold these ideas and their congregations deviating from official SSPX statements in this regard?

God bless all of us and I really do hope my brothers and sisters in the SSPX and all of trads will be truly reconciled soon.

As do I, but a great deal of humility will be needed before that will happen.

To your question.

I don’t believe many of the priest members of the SSPX, or even their bishops (though I am not sure about Williamson) would say that the post-Conciliar reformed rites for ordination are invalid.  Some probably would.  I recall years ago a priest of my acquaintance who skipped from his diocese to join the SSPX was conditionally re-ordained, which was a pretty serious problem.  But I believe that to be an aberration.  At least I hope it was.

It strikes me that they would hold to the position laid out by the late Michael Davies in his book Order of Melchisedech: Defense of the Catholic Priesthood, which I think might be out of print. 

Davies points out that the new rites, or rather the rites as they were issued by Paul VI, were in many ways flawed.  There was not adequate explicit expression of the meaning of the rite, exactly what was being conferred (the power the forgive sins, bless, transubstantiate bread and wine).  The idea is that a rite should express clearly what it means to accomplish.  That is to say that the ordaining bishop must have the intention to confer what the Church intends to confer.  That is facilitated and made explicit in the rite itself, by word and gesture. 

John Paul II reworked the rites in 1990, reinserting into the rites some elements that had been removed in order to make clear what the rites were doing.  I was probably the first man in the world ordained with that book as a deacon by Augustin Card. Mayer, now the oldest cardinal in the world, and then later I was ordained a priest with it by the same John Paul II.

However, even though Mr. Davies – now sorely missed – said that Paul VI’s rites were flawed, and I think he was right – they were not so flawed as to be invalid. 

The idea is this.  The bishops who were doing the ordaining were trained in an era in which what they were doing was very clear.  They knew what the rite intended to confer even if that wasn’t manifestly expressed in its entirely in the rite.  The rite was sufficiently clear, if not completely, and the Church and bishops knew what they were doing. 

However, Mr. Davies rang an alarm bell, and rightly so.  I am not saying that he is directly responsible for the reworking of the rites of ordination by John Paul II, but I think he may have contributed to and shaped the discussion. 

The problem – and it was a grave grave grave one – was this: What will happen decades in the future when, after decades of really lousy theological training in seminaries and squishy theology in universities, et al., bishops do not have a clear idea of who a priest is or what he does in the Church?  Can he possibly have the intention to do what the Church wants if those things are not explicitly laid out in the rites?  That would call into serious question the validly of the ordination.  The ordaining bishop would not have the proper intention to ordain as the Church intends.  

Thus, it was of critical importance to make sure the new rites had those elements.

Anyone who has been to ordinations with the new post-Conciliar rites and also the older pre-Conciliar rites will know what I am talking about.  Even if you saw the FSSP ordinations in Lincoln, NE on EWTN and have also seen ordinations with the new rite, you will see instantly that they are different in many respects. 

The new rite ordinations are valid, without question in the Latin form of the 1990 revision by John Paul II.  But I think we have to admit that the older form of the rites more clearly expresses what the Church intends.

So, in short, I think that most of the SSPX priests, at least the smart ones, will understand that the new rites are valid, just as the Novus Ordo is valid.  However, I think they would be very concerned about them. 

Final note.  I mentioned Michael Davies.

I can’t help but think that Michael Davies, a great gentleman who died a couple years ago, would have strongly supported the gesture of the Holy See made to the SSPX.

I met Michael Davies and remember what a tremendous bulldog he was on points he was convinced about.  However, you could have an amicable discussion with him and, if your arguments were good, he would shift his position.  Also, he was careful not to go over the top with his rhetoric and, when something was pointed out to him that was too harsh, he would make changes.

I think Michael Davies – sorely missed today – would have been thrilled by the election of Pope Benedict, Summorum Pontificum and this recent gesture of the Holy Father to resolve the divisions that sadly wound the Church.