One point of controversy that often comes up in relation to the classical form of the Roman Rite is that of the responses. The usual practice was for the server (or the Deacon and Subdeacon at High Mass) to make the responses on behalf of the people. The "Dialogue Mass" was introduced under Pope Pius XII whereby everyone could "join in" with the responses.
Nowadays, when the older form of the Roman rite is used, aficionados get annoyed if people join in with the responses. People who are used to the newer form of Mass get annoyed and say that it is ridiculous that we cannot join in with the "Our Father", for example
One source of the problem was the rather dictatorial way in which the English responses were introduced in the early 70s. People were cajoled and hectored because they didn't say "And also with you" loudly enough. In some places it became a pantomime: "The Lord be with you... I can't HEAR you ... The LORD be WITH you..." and so on. The result is that people feel that they are somehow participating better if they shout out the responses as loudly as they can.
It seems to me that a good compromise when re-introducing the older form of the Mass would be to accept it if people want to join in with "Et cum spiritu tuo" or "Amen" at various points but to encourage them do so in a reasonably quiet voice to allow the server to lead the responses. At the same time, it can be made clear (to the relief of many) that people can be quiet and say their own prayers in union with the priest if they want to.
When celebrating Mass in Latin, the older form is more pastorally suitable than the newer form in that it is natural for the server to take up the more complex responses on behalf of the people. With the newer rite, people have to either read from a book or learn the Latin Confiteor and the Suscipiat by heart. For some people that is fine - for others it is indeed a "barrier to participation" if such a chorus is seen as being of the essence of real participation.
Of course the real participation called for by the Liturgical Movement and by Vatican II is primarily concerned with uniting ourselves spiritually with the Divine Victim. For some people this can be reinforced externally by joining in quietly with the responses. For others it is fine to pray quietly, uniting the mind and heart in a contemplative spirit with the Liturgical Action that is taking place at the altar.
With the older form of the rite, a wider range of external participation is possible. With the newer rite, it seems to me that only one sort of participation is allowed - that of joining in audibly with the responses, reading things in a book or listening attentively to today's passage from the book of Numbers.
17 comments:
I have limited experience with the SSPX so I can't say if it's common in all locations but...
I remember hearing Mass at an SSPX chapel on a Holyday (only opportunity for the Traditional Mass) and I was almost blown over by the volume of the SUNG responses from the congregation. (They drowned out the choir) Oldest to youngest singing along in Latin.
It was the first time I'd experienced such a thing and I must say that I was quite impressed.
Father, this is kind of off-topic (my bad habit, sorry!), but any idea why at the Tridentine Mass I go to the Priest leads the Confiteor very shortly before Communion (I can't quite remember the exact place)? I find I am having to flick back right to the beginning of the Mass. I'm not complaining; I just don't understand.
At a Sung Mass (ordinary or extraordinary use), I find joining in with a sung Credo very uplifting an expression of joy, much more so than what can appear to be an apathetic recitation of the creed in the vernacular.
The two 'uses' are one rite however it does seem that there is still two approaches to the participation. Having not been brought up on the extraordinary form and because I do not go to that 'use' often enough, I do find it challenging to keep focused during the Mass, much to my disgrace.
I think I need to read some mediations on the Mass, I believe the Chaplaincy library has a pre-concillary book on the issue I should probably read.
This may make me sound like a complete Victor Meldrew but, the problem that I have with people making the responses at a low Mass is that there usually isn't much attempt at uniformity; it's just all sorts of people blithely going at random speeds. The people who LOUDLY rattle off the responses at 90 miles an hour are the ones who particularly, how shall I say it politely? dissipate any recollection or devotion I may have started with, and make it very hard for me to concentrate, never mind pray. It's bad enough having a server rush the responses, but en mass?! From my experience I think that there’s more uniformity when the congregation make the responses during a Sung Mass; due to the melody there seems to be less opportunity for individualism :c).
Fr Tim, it would be interesting to know your views on a related issue, which is the extent of congregational "joining in" in a Missa Cantata. As an organist, I'm itching to accompany a 1962 mass, with plainsong propers and ordinaries and a few voluntaries based on the chant - perhaps some Tournemire or Guilmant. But in a typical parish with no choir, what are the congregation currently (for the 1962 mass) permitted to sing and what must be left to the (nonexistent) choir?
Versus Populum Pantomime: He's behind you!
To many of those of the pre-conciliar generations, as well as to those who have been accustomed to be able to attend the Missa Normativa in Latin, joining in the responses may be a matter of ingrained (if perforce long-neglected) habit!
Jason - I think you hit on a point there. Many people are hard of hearing and so they cannot tell the speed at which others are speaking. If everyone is told to shout the responses out, it does make for a bit of a cacophany.
Adrian - I think it was common for the people to join in with the ordinary of the Mass: Kyrie, Credo etc. But for a Missa Cantata, you need some people to sing the Introit, Gradual etc. That couldn't be done by the congregation unless you are celebrating Mass at a music college or something.
Clare - ROFL
"With the newer rite, it seems to me that only one sort of participation is allowed - that of joining in audibly with the responses, reading things in a book or listening attentively to today's passage from the book of Numbers."
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't that three sorts of participation? And what makes you think participating in a contemplative fashion in the new Mass is impossible?
isn't that three sorts of participation?
Touché! - yes that wasn't put very well, was it? What I meant was that with the newer rite, people have been led to think that if they are not doing any of these external things, they are not really participating properly. People even confess it as a sin!
What makes me think that participating in a contemplative fashion in the new rite is difficult is that people feel that they have to do external things pretty well all the time. To make up for this, there are sometimes artificial silences, the length of which varies according to the judgement of the priest.
But if you find spiritual fruit from the newer rite, I thank God for that. It is not my intention to undermine the fruit that people obtain from the newer rite of Mass.
I am seriously contemplating getting some earplugs for use before receiving Holy Communion so that I can meditate appropriately afterwards, and shut out the volume of sound from the amplifiers. Would that be sinful, do you think?
I agree with Jason.
At a quiet Low Mass in the old form, I prefer the server to make all the responses.
I find my concentration is completely disrupted by the cacophany of the entire congregatioin making the responses : generally, all at their own tempo. I have even heard some men drowning out the priest's voice during, say, the Pater Noster.
Very annoying, and very distracting.
On the other hand, joining in (some of) the sung parts at a Missa Cantaa seems the natural thing to do.
Here I agree with Liam. It is a unique experience to sing the Credo together, especially to a familiar chant as in Credo III, which we heard at Pope Benedict's inaugural Mass.
It is most significant that those parts of the Missa Cantata which the faithful are encouraged to sing (Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei), the same words and music are sung both in the old and new forms.
This seems to me one of the clearest indications that the ordinary and extraordinary forms are indeed one and the same rite :
the Roman rite.
(Always provided the people sing in unison, and don't shout. And leave the trained choir to do the more difficult bits : Introit, Graduale,Communio, etc.)
Now I sound like Victor Meldrew..
Mark, the '62 missal doesn't mention the confiteor just before communion, but there is some dispute as to whether it was suppressed or not. I don't what the practice is south of the border, but at the indult mass in Glasgow it is not said and at the indult mass in Edinburgh they servers do say a second(third?) confiteor. At SSPX chapels they always say the confiteor just before communion.
"...if you find spiritual fruit from the newer rite, I thank God for that. It is not my intention to undermine the fruit that people obtain from the newer rite of Mass."
Sometimes Father that's what it sounds like. It may not be your intention but in your enthusiasm for the older form you do generally tend to cast the new mass in negative terms.
I am delighted with the Pope's Motu Proprio even though I do not attend Mass in the old rite. I go to a sung Latin Mass in the new rite which is celebrated with as much devotion, contemplation and internal prayer as any old rite Mass. If as the Pope says the two forms are one Roman rite then we must accept that the fruits are as one provided the Mass is celebrated with dignity.
"The usual practice was for the server (or the Deacon and Subdeacon at High Mass) to make the responses on behalf of the people."
The Deacon and Subdeacon answer when the prayers are said in a low voice (e.g., during the prayers at the foot of the altar or after the Orate fratres), but when the prayers are sung, the people answer as well. Such at least is my understanding.
I hope it is not too unwelcome in this context, but it might be of some use in this discussion to observe the experience and practice of Anglo-Catholics in the conduct of their liturgy.
Most, but certainly not all, of the worshipers at an Anglo-Catholic Mass pray and sing aloud. They do so at a sound level that is clearly and distinctly audible but is not loud enough to detract from reverence. They do so in unison, at a pace that is neither artificially slow nor too rapid to be reverent. With no apparent coaching they seem to have been socialized into praying audibly together, without degenerating into a cacophony or allowing worship to degenerate into a kind of group expression of individual egoisms.
One is forced to wonder why the experience is so different in the modern Roman Rite. Jason observed his experience, “at a low Mass is that there usually isn't much attempt at uniformity; it's just all sorts of people blithely going at random speeds. The people who LOUDLY rattle off the responses at 90 miles an hour . . . and make it very hard for me to concentrate, never mind pray. It's bad enough having a server rush the responses, but en mass?!” To be fair, Jason does observe “more uniformity when the congregation make the responses during a Sung Mass; due to the melody there seems to be less opportunity for individualism.”
Nevertheless, it shouldn’t be necessary for Catholics to choose between predominantly silent prayer and a rushed individualistic cacophony. Here are a couple of observations that I hope are helpful.
1. From my own observation, it strikes me that Anglo-Catholics are noticeably aware that in praying together we literally “re-member” the Mystical Body of Christ. That is to say, the congregation views itself as an expression of the church as that Mystical Body of Christ. Clearly, it is NOT ESSENTIAL for either “re-membering” or for participatio actuosa to participate audibly. Nevertheless, Anglo-Catholics at audible prayer are seemingly socialized into understanding the goal of becoming a part of a single congregation and not a group of individuals who happen to have been aggregated in the same place.
2. It is worth remembering how heavily protestantized Anglicanism had become by the time that Venerable John Henry Newman, Edward Pusey, John Keble, etc., began the Oxford Movement to recover Catholic theology and, only later and consequentially, Catholic liturgical practice. One cannot wonder if the centuries of protestant theological dominance, with its de-emphasis of the necessarily distinctive role of the ordained priesthood did not play some role in producing this ethos of participation. Later, Anglo-Catholics reintroduced Catholic liturgy to congregations already trained to consider reverential audible participation in unison to be a key aspect of the people’s role.
3. I AM NOT in any way advocating that Catholics should become Protestants, but one must wonder if there are any lessons to learn in terms of making audible participation a more useful means toward the end of participatio actuosa for Catholics.
4. In this regard, there is, I think, a problem of exaggerated expectations of what would come of the post-conciliar liturgical reform. It is useful to recall that in 1549, when vernacular liturgy was introduced to England under King Edward VI, the then-new Book of Common Prayer called for “clerks”, a.k.a. servers, to give responses on behalf of the people. It was only over time--decades and generations--that Anglican congregations came to be socialized into praying aloud and to do so in a seemly and reverent manner. It may be that a similarly long period of time would be necessary to develop a sound ethos of audible but reverent participation among Catholics.
5. In the Catholic Church, the practice of the Dialogue Mass had barely even begun, viewed in historical time, when it was swept aside. I, for one, think that it is well worth trying again, but with the understanding that it may take decades or even generations to “get it right,” which is to say, preserving and enhancing the interior participation in the Divine Sacrifice, while enhancing the sense of the liturgy as the shared prayer of the “re-membered” Mystical Body of Christ.
Missa cantata everywhere to solve the problem!
As long as only the chant is used (i.e no polyphony) then the congregation should, certainly be singing the whole ordinary. After all, the choir is only there to keep the people singing the right stuff.......
In which case, suggest beginning with Mass XI and Credo I or IV (I don't like III and unless the people are familiar with it already it doesn't make a difference). Get a bunch of people who know it to lead the singing.
Chant is much easier for congregational singing than the modern 'worship songs' people so love..
Reserving the Propers to a schola is probably a good idea until your whole congregation can sightread chant
Post a Comment