I hope that your study of the Missal of Pope John XXIII will help you to appreciate the history and richness of that form of the Mass. And I trust that you will bring all that you learn to every celebration of the Mass you lead in the future.In the context of this positive appreciation of Archbishop Nichols' words, I would like to take up one question which will, I am sure, be the focus of much discussion in the future.
Pope Benedict affirmed clearly that there are not two rites, but two forms of the one Roman Rite. The Archbishop says:
Why does the Pope insist that there is one rite of the Mass? Because, whichever form is being used, the same mystery is being celebrated, the same rite is followed. There is one mystery and there is one movement, or structure, through which that mystery is enacted.I would suggest that there is something more to the Holy Father's insistence on the "one rite, two forms." After all, the various Eastern rites all celebrate the same mystery of salvation but they are not forms of the Roman rite. It is also worth remembering that where the newer form of the Roman Rite is celebrated well (as on Tuesday morning at Merton, for example), there can be no doubt that the kind of rite that is celebrated is Roman - it could not be mistaken for any other kind of rite.
This would all be a matter of terminology were it not for the purpose of the Holy Father: he sees the two forms of the rite as "mutually enriching." Most people seem to understand this in terms of enriching the older form with some of the prefaces of the newer form, and the celebration of some of the new saints; and enriching the newer form with the sense of the sacred that is found in proper celebrations of the older form.
I wonder whether we might also look for other more particular ways in which the older form could enrich the celebration of the Missal of Paul VI. The Holy Father himself, writing in "The Spirit of the Liturgy" suggested that the recitation of the canon in silence would be a good option to have available. He also suggested the possibility of using both the priestly prayers before Holy Communion. Pope John Paul quoted the scriptural prayer that the priest used to say before receiving from the chalice. There are several devotional prayers said secreto (the aufer a nobis, the oramus te and the placeat tibi for example) which the priest could say without in any way disrupting the flow of the newer rite. I have also heard that Cardinal Estevez was in favour of introducing the older offertory prayers as an option in the 2000 edition of the new Roman Missal.
I hope that in due course, considerable latitude will be explicitly allowed for priests to introduce elements of the usus antiquior into celebrations according to the ordinary form. Many priests have done so for a while now, perhaps wondering a little in conscience occasionally. Removing such scruples would be very much in accord with the project of Summorum Pontificum and would allow the ordinary form of the rite to undergo a slow and organic correction.
21 comments:
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes! I think you are entirely right to believe that the mutual enrichment of the two forms is a main reason for the motu proprio. I'm inclined to think that Pope Benedict's concern with the motu proprio is not so much to restore the 1962 form of Mass, as to restore the 1970 form to what it was and is supposed to be.
If the 1962 and 1970 forms are, in fact, one rite, there should not be the gulf between them that one habitually sees (with some notable exceptions such as at the various Oratories). Elements of the 1970 form can enrich the 1962. And elements from the 1962 form (such as the offertory prayers) can enrich the 1970 form.
The motu proprio will, I hope, help to develop an awareness (starting with priests) that the 1970 form of Mass should be seen as differing so starkly with the 1962 form. There should be continuity and not rupture between the two forms. According to the 1970 Missal it is entirely allowed to: a) celebrate ad orientem, b) kneel for Holy Communion and receive on the tongue, c) have good liturgical music, especially Gregorian chant (and to prohibit guitars and the sort of drossy music most of us have to put up with week after week), d) have some, if not much, if not most, if not all, of the Mass in Latin.
I hope Archbishop Nichols takes a lead in Birmingham in ensuring that the motu proprio really has an effect in how the 1970 form of the rite is celebrated. This will be a real test of his leadership--and of whether he could be the right man for Westminster. And let us hope and pray that other bishops act too!
Thinking about one form of the rite enriching the other, and having mutual influence I have come to a thought: could it be possible that such influence would lead to either a third form or that the two forms get united. In the future we could be speaking of a Roman Rite which is not the older nor the newer form, but a form evolving naturally from the mixing of elements.
Just a thought...
Your suggestion of enriching the modern form of the Roman rite is an excellent one. The hoped-for Reform of the Reform must surely lead to the best of the old and the best of the new coming back into contact with each other.
Some time ago I was told by Monsignor (now Bishop) Peter Elliott that, in Rome, it was common to see priests making the sign of the cross on themselves not just at the Supplices te rogamus of the Roman Canon, but during the analogous parts of the other Eucharistic Prayers. Similarly, the striking of the breast at Nobis quoque peccatoribus could be imitated when praying the other E.P.'s. As for all the signs of the cross in the older version of the Canon...?
Again, many priests and bishops cense the altar and oblata using the older, fuller form, with many swings of the thurible. It is also common to see priests making the older, more gracious movements of the hands at the Sursum corda, or before giving the final blessing. Why not sing the Ite missa est to one of the many old tones? From what I'm told, all of this is nothing other than celebrating "according to the Use of Brompton Oratory"!
Certainly a silent Canon is very desirable. It would allow, not just for singing longer settings of the Sanctus, but for helping people to meditate on the sacred mysteries. I have still think that Lyndwood, the English canonist, put his finger on the essential point about why the canon is better silent, when he wrote it was done that way "ne impediatur populus orare" - that the people be not impeded from praying.
Today, when most Mass-goers should know the Eucharistic Prayer almost by heart through hearing it every time - else how do the faithful so easily recognize when Father changes the words? - it is precisely the time to allow silent recitation, since the faithful would know what is being prayed anyway.
As you suggest, several of the devotional prayers of the celebrant could be inserted for his benefit: the Aufer a nobis and Oramus te; the longer older version of the Munda cor meum; any and all of the older Offertory prayers; both the prayers before communion, and even the various verses such as Quid retribuam Domino at the reception of the Sacrament; restore the Corpus tuum Domine as an alternative to the Quod ore sumpsimus; use the Placeat at the end, and why not the Last Gospel pro pia devotione while leaving the altar?
One thing that could easily be done is to say the prayers whilst vesting in sacristy. As well as being good for the priest, I also feel it can give serve as erm good practice(!) for servers and reader to.
fr paul harrison
Oh, yes, the vesting prayers. I have said those now for many years and forgot that they are not even suggested anywhere in the new books. Also the direction of intention ("Ego volo celebrare missam ... iuxta ritum sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae...")
Likewise the gestures at the dialogue before the preface, and the incensing.
There is (obviously, I hope) a missing "not" in the first sentence of the third para. of my comment: "...the 1970 form of Mass should NOT be seen as differing so starkly..."
Perhaps you could just edit the comment that's already up?
...as long as it's generally understood that any attempt to "enrich" the usus antiquior with the new lectionary remains absolutely unacceptable.
Perhaps you could just edit the comment that's already up?
If only blogger allowed an easy way to do that ...
Enrichment of one form by the other will not hide the glaringly obvious fact that no one dares say,- that the new form is simply inferior to the old, however well the new form may be celebrated.In car terms, it's like comparing a Robin Reliant to a Rolls; both get you from A to B, but how differently! Supposing we have a lot of history ahead of us( a debatable premise), the new form will die a natural death within a 100 years.For the present we need to get it said according to the GIRM, an almost impossible task in the current regimes. In Westminster, for example I doubt if more than 8 of the 200+ churches say Mass faithful to the GIRM. Glaring abuses such as the intinction practised at Quex Road are ignored.
Heh. I know this great priest who says both rites, but he does tend to stick in lots of the silent prayers from the 1962 into the new one - when gently remonstrated with he claimed obedience. "My bishop tells me to be more creative,to make it up, and that's what I'm doing!".
Ken - Oh, I think there are plenty of us who "dare" to say that the new rite is inferior to the old. It is, as you say, glaringly obvious. I agree with you that the new form will probably die a natural death. In most places, I reckon it will not take 100 years.
Berenike - that's very funny. Pass on to him my advice that he must install altar rails in order to fulfil the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act.
I know your point about the altar rails was meant to be light- hearted, but there is a serious point to be made about them with respect to some people with disabilities.
While I long for the day when altar rails are (re-)installed in churches, I know from personal experience that their presence can sometimes make it difficult for some disabled people to receive Holy Communion: e.g., wheelchair users or those who have difficulty kneeling. Perhaps it would be possible to incorporate within the designs of altar rails, a small section on each side where a person in a wheelchair can wheel up close (or where someone can stand if they cannot kneel)?
Churches should be beautiful, and help to encourage worship of God. They should never be merely functional (like some of the warehouses, serving as Churches, that we have today). But they should also meet people's needs.
Maria - it is possible for people to stand at most altar rails, including mine. For wheelchair users, it is always possible for the priest to go outside the sanctuary to give communion to a person in a wheelchair. If there are gates in the centre (there are not in my Church yet), then an alternative is for the server to open one of the gates so that the person can come up in the wheelchair to receive communion without the priest having to lean over too far.
The problem of people wishing to kneel but needing the support of a rail is a far more common need.
"Ken ... I agree with you that the new form will probably die a natural death. In most places, I reckon it will not take 100 years."
Here is a powerfully stated alternative view that begs an informed response.
The following column appeared in the Joliet Catholic Explorer for August 24th. It is by Father Peter Daly. If anyone wishes to respond, and I hope you will Fr. Tim, the address of the Explorer is Cathexpl@dioceseofJoliet.org
A blurb at the end of the article says "Father Daly is a pastor in Maryland and a regular contributor for Catholic News Service," so I imagine this column got wide play throughout the US. Perhaps you can find out from CNS how you might respond through CNS wherever Fr Daly's column runs. The editors at Joliet Catholic should be able to put you in contact with CNS.
The article:
The Tridentine Mass
A parish near mine has been celebrating the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass for more than 15 yrs. The pastor has special permission granted years ago by the former Archbishop of Washington, Cardinal James Hickey. He is also one of the few priests around who remembers the pre-1962 ritual.
Almost nobody comes.
He gets about 30 to 50 people per Sunday, even though his is the only Latin Mass for at least 40 miles around in an area that encompasses at least 20 parishes.
Most of the people who come are elderly. They like this Mass because it is quiet and short. it reminds them of the old days. A few young people come once in a while out of curiosity. They do not come back often.
The Latin Mass means a lot of work of rhe pastor. Under the old liturgy the priest did just about everything. The people who come to the Latin Mass like that part of the tradition just fine. They don't think they should do anything but show up. After all, it is the priest who says Mass.
Before Vatican II's reforms, there were no lectors or eucharistic ministers. The servers said most of the responses. A lot of the prayers were said "sotto voce," i.e. inaudibly.
For my neighbor, the extra liturgy means that he had to move the altar used for the Mass facing the people.... Then he has to change into different vestments.
Most inconvenient of all, he has to prepare and preach a different homily on some Sundays.
Why a different homily? Because there are different readings. In the pre-1962 liturgy there was a one year cycle of readings. We read only an Epistle and a Gospel. There were no readings from the Old Testament. We didn't hear much of the Bible and it was heard in Latin.
Since the reforms of Vatican II our book of readings for Sundays (Lectionary) has a three year cycle, which includes readings from the Hebrew Scriptures. So my neighbor can't even preach the same homily for the Latin and English Mass on most holidays.
A few folks from my parish go over to my neighbor's parish for the Latin Mass. Mostly they are quite elderly. They don't like all the singing at my parish. They don't like shaking hands. They don't like Communion in both forms. They don't like having three readings.
They tell me what they like most about the Latin Mass is that they can get in and get out quickly. They put a high premium on speed. A good liturgy is a short liturgy.
For them a good liturgy also is one where they don't have to speak to anyone or do anything. Their whole attitude says "I want no committment and I want no communication." Hardly the "full and active participation" that Vatican II called for.
So now that Pope Benedict XVI has issued his "motu proprio" permitting the celebration of the pre-Vatican II Latin Mass, will their be big crowds at Latin Mass? Will more parishes start to offer it? I doubt it.
Apart from schismatic followers of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and a few young people who are nostalgic for a church they never knew, almost nobody is pressing for it. Nobody under the age of 55 even remembers the old Latin ritual.
I think my neighbor's experience will be that of the church. We can offer it. But almost nobody will come.
Not much need to respond, I think. They are whistling in the dark to keep up their spirits.
The cheap insults are annoying, though - people put themselves out to attend the TLM: it is appalling to accuse them of wanting a "quick Mass".
Fr Tim, I'm sorry to have to take issue with you on your response to me, but I don't' think your response is really adequate.
I noticed an earlier blog of yours (17 April 2006 - you'll be pleased to know that your earlier writings are being re-read!) in which you mentioned that care had been taken in the construction of a new confessional in your church so that it would meet the needs of those who couldn't kneel, including wheelchair users. You said, "The door is wide enough to accommodate a wheelchair, and the kneeler (and chair) are removable so that a person in a wheelchair can make their confession with dignity."
I was pleased that you had taken care to see to this. My sister, who uses a wheelchair, has often expressed her dismay that most church confessionals - including many new ones - are completely inaccessible, and where it is possible care should be taken to ensure that wheelchair users can make their confession anonymously, and with the same dignity as anyone else.
Similarly with altar rails. If it is reasonably possible for a wheelchair user to receive Holy Communion in a way which does not mean that they 'stick out' from everyone else, requiring something extra for them which makes them feel awkward, then isn't it right that care should be taken? You note that priests cannot easily lean over a communion rail to give Holy Communion. Given that in most churches it will be necessary (please God soon!) to install communion rails, shouldn't the needs of wheelchair users be taken into account when designing them?
Of course, this is all pretty academic given we'll probably be waiting a while for communion rails to be intalled in most churches. More pressing is the fact that very few churches even have a space where wheelchair users can sit without feeling out a limb.
Sorry to go on so long. It's meant to be a constructive point, not a moan!
Maria - other than having a gap in the altar rails or a gate that can be opened, what kind of modification did you have in mind?
I come rather late to the discussion, mainly because I knew that Fr Aidan Nichols had said something pertinent about enrichment, but I took some time to find the reference.
I agree wholeheartedly with what has been said (especially by Joshua Martin)about the incorporation of 1962 elements into the 1970 form. The reverse traffic is dealt with by Nichols in his book "Christendom Awake" (T & T Clark, 1999), p.34, where he suggests: "expasnsion of Lectionary resources, some use of the vernacular (and hence, logically, much use of Latin!), a litanic prayer of intercession, priestly concelebration and lay reception of the chalice where aprrpriate."
By way of postscript, if anyone is in Leeds on the second Saturday of any month other than August, he or she can attend a truly dignified sung celebration in the novus ordo at 1600 in the Cathedral - save for the readings, entirely in Latin.
Fr Tim - a gap in the altar rails is one solution. If I recall correctly, this is the arrangement at the Oxford Oratory. If the altar rails are rounded, and the gaps are at each side, they would hardly be noticeable to anyone - yet fully serve their purpose.
An alternative to an open gap would be to have the rail going all the way round, but the kneeler part omitted at the sides so that a wheelchair user can wheel him/herself right up to the rail. (Does that make sense?)
I appreciate your asking, which shows your willingness to find a fitting solution.
Hello Fr Tim
Some time ago we asked our pastor to provide the older form of the Mass and he readily agreed. Now, instead of our usual hymn sandwich with incense at 11.30am on Sunday mornings we are going to have a solemn High Mass. We were all really pleased about this. But two discordant notes have been sounded. One of our friends has said we won't be able to receive Holy Communion and that we will have to go to two Masses on Sundays. Is that true? Also we have someone who argues that since the question of altar servers is a matter of Canon Law it will be possible to have girls serving. Our Pastor has told us to sort this out amongst ourselves. He's happy to go along with whatever we decide. I'm beginning to understand why some of my traditionalist friends weren't happy with the Pope's decision.
Do you have any advice?
Mary.
Mary T - it is good news that your Pastor is so helpful.
Not sure why your friend says you can't go to Holy Communion. Years ago, when there were several Low Masses and a High Mass at the end of a parish's schedule, most people who were going to communion went at one of the earlier Masses. But it was always recognised that someone could present themselves for Holy Communion. In High Masses celebrated in recent years, is it quite usual for people to go to Holy Communion.
On the question of girl servers, a casuist (or someone who just wants to be awkward) could argue that they are permitted but it would obviously be better to retain the tradition of boys only serving at such Masses. This would be according to the mind of Pope Benedict who wishes to meet the legitimate aspirations of the faithful to celebrate a more traditional form of liturgy.
As there are likely to be other opportunities for girls to serve, it might be a good opportunity to encourage a few more boys to get started.
Post a Comment