I was intrigued by a post on Fr John’s blog about choosing the Eucharistic Prayer which followed a similar post by Fr Tim, I must say I can’t cope with too much choice and I do believe liturgy should be consistent, predictable even, it is not the place for novelties.
Since beginning to look at the “Extra-Ordinary Form”, the obvious difference between it and the “Ordinary Form” for the man in the pew, is not the language of the modern Mass, if we hear Rome on the matter it should be celebrated in Latin, it is not the direction the priest faces, facing the people is only an option, even if it has become the normal way of offering the sacrifice.
The real difference is the “voice” the priest uses during the Eucharistic Prayer, in the past the priest said it almost silently. Now, I think, it is supposed to be said aloud. But how aloud is aloud? The words of Consecration are according to the rubrics to be said “in a clear and distinct voice”. Does this mean that the rest of the prayer is supposed to be said in a less than clear and distinct voice, as in the Extra-Ordinary Form for example?
I do say it aloud but the Pope, before he became Pope suggested it should be said as in the Extra-Ordinary Form or that the first few words of each section should be said aloud.
A few years ago I had the late Bishop Henderson, an Auxiliary in Southwark, here to celebrate Mass, we did the Mozart Coronation Mass, he complained gently afterwards and said had he arranged the liturgy he would have said the Eucharistic Prayer whilst the choir were singing Sanctus and Benedictus. I know other Bishops who do this but I am not sure how licit it is. Again it was the practice in the past.
With the liberalisation of the Extra-Ordinary Form, the Holy Father expects a pull or influence on the Ordinary Form, and vice versa, many serious German liturgists, the Holy Father has said, have suggested that Eucharistic Prayer is in crisis, so maybe the first “pull” should be on the Eucharist Prayer.
I would be grateful for comments on this.
Since beginning to look at the “Extra-Ordinary Form”, the obvious difference between it and the “Ordinary Form” for the man in the pew, is not the language of the modern Mass, if we hear Rome on the matter it should be celebrated in Latin, it is not the direction the priest faces, facing the people is only an option, even if it has become the normal way of offering the sacrifice.
The real difference is the “voice” the priest uses during the Eucharistic Prayer, in the past the priest said it almost silently. Now, I think, it is supposed to be said aloud. But how aloud is aloud? The words of Consecration are according to the rubrics to be said “in a clear and distinct voice”. Does this mean that the rest of the prayer is supposed to be said in a less than clear and distinct voice, as in the Extra-Ordinary Form for example?
I do say it aloud but the Pope, before he became Pope suggested it should be said as in the Extra-Ordinary Form or that the first few words of each section should be said aloud.
A few years ago I had the late Bishop Henderson, an Auxiliary in Southwark, here to celebrate Mass, we did the Mozart Coronation Mass, he complained gently afterwards and said had he arranged the liturgy he would have said the Eucharistic Prayer whilst the choir were singing Sanctus and Benedictus. I know other Bishops who do this but I am not sure how licit it is. Again it was the practice in the past.
With the liberalisation of the Extra-Ordinary Form, the Holy Father expects a pull or influence on the Ordinary Form, and vice versa, many serious German liturgists, the Holy Father has said, have suggested that Eucharistic Prayer is in crisis, so maybe the first “pull” should be on the Eucharist Prayer.
I would be grateful for comments on this.
16 comments:
In The Spirit of the Liturgy, the Holy Father recommends the silent Canon in the most fulsome terms - he mentions it specifically in the context of the opinion of German liturgists. He states and restates his opinion - "amplifies" is the word his translator uses IIRC - that this is the natural, obvious solution to such a "crisis".
As for any ambiguity in the rubrics, I suppose one is bound to read them in the light of immemorial tradition.
AFAIK, in recent years the GIRM people and "the powers that be" said: No singing DURING the consecration.
As a personal preference, I have to agree. The most important prayer ever said anywhere -- and I WANT TO HEAR IT. :-D As to what the "logic" was in the past regarding things being sung over the canon - I don't know - maybe the thinking was "those lazy sods in the pew are illiterate or too cheap to buy a hand missal, may as well have the choir sing something to keep their minds on something pretty rather than what Mrs. Murphy is wearing." You'd have to time travel and ask "them" though.
As regards Eucharistic Prayer choice. My vote now and for all time is for #1. #2, #3, and #4 "get 'er done" - don't misunderstand me - but for style I'm going with #1. It also has the advantage of all those wonderful saints being mentioned, which seems to unite the Church Militant with the Church Triumphant - I like it.
So, with apologies to Arthur Laurents "sing out, Louise."
Moretben,
Yes, but then there was that odd statement from the CDW, under Bugnini I think, saying that what had happened in the past should not necessarily happen now.
Gem,
Yes, but what would be sung was not any old rubbish but the Sanctus and Benedictus the chant which from ancient times was at the very heart of the Eucharistic Prayer. It is a reminder that we are to raise our hearts and minds with angels and saints. The trouble is people do listen to the Eucharistic Prayer but aren't necessarilly praying, or even raising hearts as they have been told to. The priest becomes a distraction, hence the Pope speaking about a crisis in E.P.
Certainly there should be no singing during the Consecration, I think that was the practice in the past, the priest would wait.
Father you wouldn't be a distraction unless you are doing jumping jacks. Pleasant looking as you are, you still ain't Clark Gable. :-D
There's "looking" at you, and then there's LOOKING at *you.* We're "looking" at you. I can't tell if it's stage fright on your part or just humble self-effacement. Perhaps a bit of both? But given what you've said I'd exdpect moreof the latter. Being "looked at" for a man in your position comes with the territory. Don't over think it.
Oh, and I do disagree with the pope if he is saying there is a "crisis" in the EP - to me the CRISIS is that too many Catholics apparently don't believe the Eucharist is the actual Body and Blood of Christ. If the Pope says Mass at leisure, with "all the trimmings" and a priest two days out of the seminary says Mass under the most primitive conditions on the hood of a jeep in a war zone - my reverence for the Eucharist should be the same. If it's not - there is something wrong with my formation or belief or values.
Personally, I like a slightly audible whisper.As regards good old Bugnini's words of wisdom, apply it with a few modifications under the guidance of hindsight as follows :
What happened in the last 40 years should necessarily not happen now nor ever again for that matter.
Father,
why don't you try:
first: the Pope's solution to an altar facing the people: place a massive crucifix in the centre of the altar so that you can face an image of God, explaining why you are doing so.
Second: use Eucharistic Prayer 1 on Sundays and Holy Days (with all the Saints), and lower your voice throughout so that, apart from the Consecration, people can just hear you if they listen, explaining why you are doing so.
It will be a start. The curate here has started doing a silent Offertory which has reduced the Church to stillness as they follow what he is doing and pray the words the priest says to themselves. In the modern way of doing things, what the priest says and what we say are two different things: it takes a violent change to make people realise that we pray through the priest.
This post raises a very interesting question which I don't think I've seen asked before.
In what tone of voice does a priest celebrate in the Novus Ordo ?
The same tone all the way through ?
(I've heard it done. Loud. And it doesn't sound right at all.)
It depends on whether the priest is having a dialogue with the people (The Lord be with you, etc.), is leading the people in prayer (Confiteor, Credo, Pater noster, etc.), is proclaiming the Gospel, or is reciting the prayers reserved to the priest alone (e.g. the Eucharistic Prayer).
In the latter case, it should be a more prayerful, meditative tone.
By that, I suppose I mean a little more slowly, in a lower tone, more softly, but not inaudibly.
The Words of Institution should (presumably) be recited slowly and deliberately.
I would say at this point "aloud" does not mean "loud".
There are variable factors here : the acoustics of the church, the presence (or absence) of a microphone, whether the celebrant is facing ad orientem or versus populum, and even the size of the congregation.
Does the idea of a "pull" by the old Mass on the new mean the rubrics, "clara voce", etc., are henceforth to be ignored or re-interpreted ?
If that is what is being suggested from Rome, then perhaps they should issue a clarification.
What I want to know is: Crucifixes and crosses - as wonderful as the are - do they REALLY need to be on the altar if the priest faces the people?
One would think THE REAL PRESENCE - WHICH THE PRIEST HAS IN HIS HANDS should be the focus. Sure, a crucifix above the altar is fine. Above a tabernacle? Fine. On the altar, between me and the priest with the Eucharist THE REAL PRESENCE in his hands? The crucifix is "in the way." JMO.
Sheesh. Sometimes the pope is a little too German for me. What IS he thinking. Just because he's pope doesn't mean he's impeccable in ever sensibility!
BTW,. do you people NOT have microphones in England? It's pretty much a given here. Priest doesn't have to shout.
Karen
Dr Wright,
The "pull" I suppose is an intellectual one, firstly let us understand where the Novus Ordo has sprung from and what is the nature of Catholic worship.
Odd priests like me asking questions like this is part of the "pull".
The "pull" goes both ways, I think in the TLM priests actually now celebrate the Liturgy of the Word so that the lections can be heard and understood, by those with a bit of Latin or missal.
The rubric about the words of consecration being said clearly and distinctly was a Bugnini fudge. Pope Paul VI wanted the words of consecration to be distinct. The Bugnini rubric makes it sound as though it is compulsory to shout them out.
The BCEW document "Celebrating the Mass" takes this further to say that the words of institution should be said as part of the overall narrative - I have seen many celebrations where this has been taken to mean that you do not pause or emphasise the words of consecration at all.
There is no rubric that specifies that you should use a microphone. If you say the words in a normal speaking voice without a microphone, you would be keeping to the letter of the Novus Ordo rubrics but emphasising the sacredness of the canon and the character of the presence of Christ who came down "in the silent watches of the night" (a reference used by Gueranger.)
Fr. Ray,
The question as to how loudly the Eucharistic Prayer should be said in the Ordinary Form is influenced partly by the Acclamation after the Consecration.
If the congregation is to interject at this time and in this way, the celebrant would presumably have to interrupt a silent canon to give the people their cue (unless the lowering of the chalice or some other gesture is used as the signal for the Acclamation).
The more I think about the Acclamation, the more I wonder about it. It's almost like a Brechtian interruption which detracts from the miracle which has just taken place, thereby impeding "authentic participation" rather than fostering it.
And where does the first acclamation come from anyway? My parallel text version of the Novus Ordo has no Latin for "Christ has died..."
Just because he's pope doesn't mean he's impeccable in ever sensibility!
No - but when he speaks from, within, on behalf of, Immemorial Tradition, a great deal more is involved than "sensibility" or German-ness.
You really should read The Spirit of the Liturgy - every Catholic should read it. This and other questions will become beautifully lucid and coherent.
I know of several "neo-con" priests who in the 1980s attempted to interpret the NO in as traditional a way as possible, wearing the maniple, silent offertory (using the old offertory prayers) and silent or barely whispered Canon. For all of them in the end the TLM became the inevitable homecoming and their celebrations of the NO tended to revert back to the rubrics. If priests are not to be accused of liturgical novelty (even if what they are introducing is manifestly good and has its roots in tradition) my view is that they ought to apply a rigid rubricism to the NO a la Bishop Elliot's guide whilst promoting the TLM in parallel. I remember an occasion some years ago when Margaret Hebblethwaite attacked one of the Oxford Oratorians in print for placing his hands over the gifts for the Epiklesis at the "Hanc Igitur" rather than the "Quam Oblationem" in the style of the TLM. Her charge was, quite rightly, liturgical innovation by a so called liturgical conservative and she took some pleasure in pointing it out. It is important I feel for priests to lobby for changes to the GIRM but in the meantime to make sure they are within the guidelines much as these might disappoint. As Fr.Tim says there is no rubrical requirement for a microphone on the altar and an ad Orientem posture can result in even a normal speaking voice being reduced to a whisper.
Sussex Catholic,
You are so right about the obedience to the rubrics, but there is a always a problem with how to interpret them properly.
It seems to me that the method suggested in the Spirit of the Liturgy is worth exploring. ie priest says the Canon in silence apart from paragraph starts so people know where they are AND the congregation has the text in front of them and they read it silently at the same time, that way everyone present is actively participating in the prayers of consecration and there is no wandering of minds.
I had to follow the Canon by reading silently in the book when I was abroad during the summer and it certainly helps to focus the prayer.
It would mean sticking to EP1 and making sure everyone in the congregation had a copy in front of them.
This seems to suggest that we will need some booklets if nobody has produced them already, with all responses in the revised ICEL English and in Latin perhaps in two columns side by side, so...
Introductory Greeting
Responses to the readings
Creed/Credo 3
May the Lord accept.../Suscipiat Dominus...
Dialogue The Lord be with you.../Dominus vobiscum
Canon
Mortem tuum annuntiamus Domine
Our Father/Pater Noster
Lord I am not worthy/Domine non sum dignus
The Mass is ended/Ite Missa est
The Ordinaries would need to be on separate sheets or the new Plainsong for Schools can be purchased at only £2 a copy.
Post a Comment