The other day, someone relatively new to the older form of Mass, told me that an elderly priest had explained to him that liturgical abuses used to happen in the old days with priests saying Mass too hurriedly. The old chap then told him (wait for it...) about how priests used to say the Mass for the Dead whenever it was allowed because it was shorter.
Now there are various possible views on the question of making Mass shorter. St Philip Neri used to remain so long in rapture after Communion that the altar server would leave him and come back later. But this was only at a private Mass. For public Masses, he insisted that priests should stick to 30 minutes maximum because the people might need to go to work and it would be wrong to discourage them from daily Mass.
But if it is to be considered an abuse to choose shorter texts, the abuse has by no means been corrected by the newer form of the Mass. It is very common for Eucharistic Prayer II to be said daily, and even on a Sunday, contrary to advice of the GIRM - simply because it is shorter. It saddens me greatly that some grand celebrations take an hour and a half but Eucharistic Prayer II is chosen because it is shorter - saving perhaps two or three minutes at most.
A further question has bothered me for some time with the new rite. What criteria do you use for choosing any of the options? Which memorial acclamation shall we have today? Which penitential rite? At seminary, we used to sit in small liturgy planning groups and agonise over such things. I suppose it still happens. You could argue that such planning needs to be a part of every liturgy. Frankly, I could not imagine a more inward-looking model of Church than one in which people spent time choosing whether to use Eucharistic Prayer 2 or 3 on Tuesday of the 29th week of the year. In any case, can you really fit one memorial acclamation to the readings more than any other? Let's face it, there is nothing pastoral or liturgical about the choice of texts in many cases. In practice, it comes down to the priest's whim or something like "we'll have number 2 today because we had number 3 yesterday." You might as well do "one potato, two potato, three potato, four..." (Then in Year B we could do "dip dip sky blue...")
So what do I do? When I say Mass in the Novus Ordo, I always use the first penitential rite, the second memorial acclamation (in English - i.e. the one that corresponds to the first choice in the editio typica). Most of the time, I say the Roman Canon although sometimes I say the third Eucharistic Prayer by way of entering into the spirit of the Novus Ordo and not "imposing my views" on others. However I am beginning to think that this is an unnecessary scruple and I am coming round to the view that it would be better simply to return to the Roman Canon for all Masses.
The advantage of this way of "choosing" is that there is less variation from day to day in the ritual of the Mass. The greater regularity "calms" the celebration of Mass a little and offers more opportunity for people to pray using the texts themselves, or to contemplate quietly the mysteries of Christ that are made present.
36 comments:
I don't think the requiem masses for the dead are that short by any significance - you have a long sequence Dies Irae and a longer offertory antiphon.
Perhaps priests used to say more masses for the dead because, back in the bad old days, people believed in the four last things.
In the daily Masses for the Dead, the Dies Irae could be omitted - in which case, the Mass would be a few minutes shorter because of the various omitted texts and the short epistle.
I agree with you that in those days, people did believe in the four last things and I'm sure that many priests had good motives for saying the Mass for the Dead.
Do you use all the two lists of saints and the Per Christum Dominum Nostrum s that are bracketed as "omittable" in the Novus Ordo edition of the Roman Canon?
I rather like the Fourth Eucharistic Prayer. One never gets to hear it...
I see the Pope seems to use them all...I would love to hear a Ratzingerian reflection on how to choose options...
In the 50's, priests with infirmities like blindness used to say the votive Mass of the BVM. I remember a priest who said that votive Mas every day sitting on a stool.I thought the votive Mass of the BVM was the shortest.
Edward P. Walton
Is it true that Ecclesia Dei is considering allowing the modernist Eucharistic prayers to be inserted into the '62 Missal?
Let's not take one elderly priest's recollection of the way 'priests' - one, two, his friends? - used to say Mass and generalise it to the whole Pre Vatican priesthood.
The same goes for all those people who used to say the rosary at Mass. I can't remember ever seeing anyone saying the rosary at Mass; most people followed the prayers from their missals. Mass used to be an hour. I used to sit near the back of the church and don't remember regular late arrivals or a rush for the door after Holy Communion.
At my parish I can't remember the last time any Eucharistic Prayer other than no 2 was said, the confiteor is never said and elderly ladies say the rosary. solem blessings are never given and people arrive late and leave early. Sunday Mass is about 40 minutes long even though every person in the congregation receives Holy Communion.
GIRM 313 and 322 state that “pastoral effectiveness” is the main criterion governing the choice of texts. GIRM 322 also gives some (not very clear, it has to be admitted) guidance on the choice of Eucharistic Prayers.
It is not for me, or anyone else, to second guess the judgements you have made in respect of your own parish, except to say that I agree with your intuition that too great a variety of texts can be “pastorally” unhelpful.
The real problem – as Fr Francis Randolph points out in his delightfully waspish analysis of the New Rite “Know Him in the Breaking of Bread” – is that the revisions to the Roman Rite embodied in the Missal of 1970 were devised by and FOR, a small group of committed, educated, middle-class adults. They do not seem to have been conscious of the needs of children, those whose educational level is not commensurate with theirs, or of those who, for whatever reason, are not quite so committed to their faith as we might like them to be. This “pastoral” ineptitude is underpinned by a misguided theology, which interprets “active participation” in terms of “doing” things, rather than the contemplative engagement with the liturgy intended by the magisterial documents themselves (including those of Vatican II), and the whole tradition of the Liturgical Movement. The result is a rather fractured experience of the liturgy, in which individuals may be disappointed if their own particular preferences aren’t followed (in terms of music, texts etc) and which, because it is theologically superficial, tends to speak of the Mass as it might do of a performance of La Traviata, or an episode of Coronation Street, i.e. in terms of whether they “get” anything out of it. And because one’s subjective experience of what one might term the “accidents” of Mass is affected by factors which are totally extrinsic to the particular “celebration”, one feels hard done by, or worse, alienated. And if this process continues for any length of time, the temptation to stop going to Mass at all becomes very real indeed.
Another problem is that the New Rite is far too cerebral and that people – certainly the Daily Mass goers – are often more contemplative (in the Carmelite sense of the word) than clergy often give them credit for. Sarcasm is out of place here, but I am tempted to speak of a Liturgy of Words, rather than a Liturgy of THE Word. A liturgy of the sort you are trying to celebrate in your parish – and which used to be provided on a regular basis by the Usus Antiquior – gives people the time, space and structure for a deep and personal encounter with Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, really, truly and sacramentally present in the Sacred Species. Concepts and words can help to prepare for this encounter, and even express one’s reaction to it, but all words and concepts ultimately dissolve in the presence of the awesome reality of the divine presence. That is why a Latin Mass – even, or perhaps especially if one does not “understand” the language – can ultimately be a more prayerful experience.
Thanks be to God all i have to do is turn up for daily Mass & not worry about such things. The evening Mass is pretty short but none the less valid.
Father, I think you are heading to the right direction. ;) The more the form is uniform, the better. It helps people pray and participate attentively and consciously. It unifies the people of God. It helps to achieve the real meaning of liturgy, namely "participation of people of God in 'the work of God'" (CCC 1069).
I should think that the reason priests offered so many Masses for the dead was more because most Mass intentions are for the deceased - not because of the length of a particular form.
I usually follow the Novus Ordo in my Missal - but in Latin. My one peeve is that during Ordinary Time I never know which Preface Father will use!
As to Eucharistic Prayers, how many officially approved forms are there...? Here in the US, in addition to Prayers I - IV, there are Reconciliation I and II. I have also heard ones used which are not in my Missal and I question whether they are approved forms or 'adhoc' ones created by a liturgical committee...
Father, I am with you on this idea of "calming" the celebration. In the past 2 months I have used only the Roman Canon at Sunday Masses and I think I will continue this practice. The silent pauses are great and I think they are a prayerful relief from the barrage of words(and my voice!. I will now likely follow your practice about the penitential rite and memorial acclamation as well.
Interesting post, but I have one little question... Isn't it a constant complaint of traditionalists that the present situation doesn't allow for a 'legitimate liturgical diversity'? Couldn't your argument in favour of using only the Roman Canon (i.e. that it simply calms things down) just as easily be deployed against diversity-loving traditionalists?
I asked the suppliers of our "missalettes" (dreadful word: dreadful things) how th Penitential Rites, Eucharistic Prayers and Memorial Acclamations were chosen. The answer seemed to be somewhere between the "one potato, two potatoes..." and the "dip, dip, sky blue..." methods - except that they never use Eucharistic Prayer 4 because it uses language that is thought to be "exclusive", by which I take them to mean it uses male pronouns. Heigh ho!
In a parish not a mile from here, for some years now EP II has been said always, with one or two rare exceptions.Given a deficient English translation of a barebones Latin original, this surely is an impoverishment of the liturgical life imposed by choice.It may arise from a deficient view of what the Mass is, and certainly results over time in a lack of understanding of the Holy Sacrifice.If the GIRM does forbid this, no use quoting it, as it will be ignored. Thank God for EWTN!
Ken
Very interesting post, Father!
I'm not a priest, but I've often thought about how one might "standardize" the option of Eucharistic Prayer II (putting aside its numerous obvious flaws for the moment).
First would be to use its proper Preface, and not to substitute another one, as much of the Canon of Hippolytus on which it is based actually wound up in the Preface. So by keeping the Preface you keep the liturgy (to whatever extent it was one originall!) intact.
Second would be to specifically tie it to the liturgical calendar: like St. Hippolytus and/or St. Clement (I believe this has a connection to what was once called the Clementine liturgy?). Perhaps EP III and IV could also be attached to suitable places in the calendar as well, in much the same way that the liturgies of St. Basil and St. James are said in the East.
While I do not dislike the historic EP2, I know exactly what you mean as it is used so frequently and the Roman Canon so infrequently. Still, better EP2 than some of the others!
Concerning the charge that abuses happened before Vatican II: this has been the defensive cry of the 'mods' for some time now and I dare say we'll hear it more and more.
What are they worried about, though? The Holy Father is not forcing 'them' to attend an EF Mass; rather, he is permitting 'us' TO attend one. Surely, in today's business speak, that's a "win-win situation"; or, do these nice liberal folks want to tell us what we can't do based simply on their own prejudices. At least when we remind our friends of prohibitions, we can cite the Church's teaching, rather than the writings of a few deceived, ex-hippy religious/clergy/journalists.
And yes, let's have more Masses for the Holy Souls!
Thankyou for this, Fr Tim, I've always wondered how which bit got chosen, and why, (in the N.O.)and now you've revealed all - it's all part of that smorgesbord mentality!!!
As an altar boy at a church which was served by a religious community of about twelve priests, I often served Masses for the Dead at side-altars on weekdays and was aware, even as a schoolboy, that certain priests favoured the Requiem Mass not just out of devotion to the Holy Souls but also because it was shorter. An eight-minute Low Requiem Mass on Monday was certainly a contrast after a one-and-a-quarter hour High Mass on Sunday
I'm sure I've seen a salutary warning for priests, written by one of our favourite Holy Doctors, St. Alphonsus Liguori, about the scandal they give when they rush Mass, and the answer they will have to give for it! As I recall, it involved the story of a man who hadn't been to Mass for years, but was finally persuaded to go by his relatives. Unfortunately, that morning, the priest rushed through the Mass at such an un-Godly speed that the man was absolutely outraged, and subsequently vowed never to darken the door of a Church again. St. Alphonsus warns that the priests in question will answer for souls such as these.
Re: votive Masses for the dead. Wasn’t it the laudable custom to offer a Mass for the dead when the Mass intention for the day was for the repose of a soul and the calendar allowed for it? Do you think Father that it would help revive devotion for the Holy Souls in general, and help people realise anew, the power of the Holy Sacrifice to help them, if this pious custom were allowed to make a welcome return, to the Ordinary Form as well as in the Usus Antiquior?
Speaking of St. Alphonsus ~ Happy Feast of the Most Holy Redeemer (23rd Oct) =D.
Many thanks for all those comments. A couple of clarifications:
Mass may be offered for the intention of a deceased person without using the texts of the Mass for the Dead.
EP II is often spoken of as by "Hippolytus" but that judgement has been seriously questioned by Bradshaw et al in the latest edition of the Apostolic Tradition. This calls into question much of the basis of some other important liturgical decisions in the mid 20th century. (I'll post about this sometime.)
Yes I always use all the saints and the "per Christum Dominum nostrum"s. The latter seem to be hardly ever used but I expect the younger clergy use them more.
The Votive Mass of Our Lady is interesting. Newman apparently knew it by heart. The readings are short but still the Mass for the Dead omits Psalm 42 and some other texts. The fellows who wanted a shorter Mass for the workers (or for a less good reason) knew what they were doing.
People did say the Rosary at Mass - Heenan actually mentioned it approvingly in the preface to the Parish Hymn Book. I agree with him that there is nothing wrong with the practice.
Auricularius - thanks for your thoughts. I agree with you.
Felix - I think the "diversity" argument was always an "argumentum ad hominem" in the sense that it targeted an aspiration of the modern liturgists and used it against them. Not sure how seriously it should be taken.
In his later years, because of his failing sight, St. Padre Pio also used to offer the Votive Mass of Our Lady every day, because he knew it by heart.
Looking forward to your promised post about the 'Hippolytus connection'.....it has always rather intrigued me but I must admit your passing reference to questioning it is the first I have come across.
I enjoyed reading this very thoughtful and thought-provoking post.
"In the old days, it used to happen that priests said the Mass too hurriedly".
Yes, I've heard that said before as a criticism of the "old" Mass, and it doesn't impress me.
On one occasion, a senior bishop told me that the Latin of the "old" Mass was "often garbled".
Both these statements may well be true.
But neither statement constitutes a valid argument against the "old" liturgy, or, for that matter, in favour of the "new" liturgy.
It seems to me there is very little freedom in the 1962 Missal to choose shorter texts, etc.
It is almost impossible for liturgical abuse to occur.
That surely is an argument in favour of the 1962 Missal.
There is certainly greater freedom to use shorter texts in the 1970 Missal.
The practice of opting for the shortest Eucharistic Prayer simply because it is the shortest is particularly to be condemned.
This seems to me to have happened since the introduction of lengthy readings and seemingly interminable bidding prayers.
So, some other part of the Mass, (I would say the most important part) is often shortened.
This seems to me an undesirable development, to say the least.
There are also opportunities to depart altogether from the text of the the 1970 Missal, and even to improvise prayers.
There seems to be far too much "ad libitum" and far too little prescription.
There is no denying that this has led to liturgical abuse, and could be used as an argument against the 1970 Missal.
The fact remains that there are far more liturgical abuses today than there ever were "in the old days".
I have never understood the need for liturgy groups, or the chopping and changing of prayers, acclamations, etc., from one day to the next.
Some people might like the variety (which is not a good reason for doing it), but to me it is nothing but a distraction.
I would find less day to day variation in the ritual an aid to prayer and contemplation.
If the new liturgy does not provide for these things, then I cannot see how it can possibly be regarded as an improvement on the old liturgy.
But then I'm not a liturgist.
a priest I know only uses the EP1 when the church organist is unavailable - to fill up time;
as for EP4? - haven't heard it in 19 years !
Dr. Wright mentions some standard criticisms of the TLM, to wit: ..."In the old days, it used to happen that priests said the Mass too hurriedly"....
On one occasion, a senior bishop told me that the Latin of the "old" Mass was "often garbled"....
When we encounter the above criticisms of the TLM, could we not counter by providing examples of the modern "Clown Mass", "Pizza Mass", and "Halloween Mass" of today's N.O.? Then, when our opponent objects: "But these are not typical of the modern vernacular Mass" ... we could hammer home the counterpoint: "Well, your examples of the TLM are likewise over-generalised and atypical of the TLM, especially the way it is prayed TODAY."
Regards,
There are many odd objections to the old Mass. One of my favourites is told by a priest who requested a more generous provision in his diocese. "Father, the trouble is that you're not old enough to remember", came the reply from his Ordinary, "the look of boredom on the faces of the people".
He resisted the temptation to say, "My Lord, the only time you would have seen their faces was when you were preaching".
:o)
The 'paulinus' above is not me.
Our PP and curate use Eucharistic Prayer 2 for the weekday 8am Mass for the good pastoral reason that workers have taken the chance to sanctify their day by hearing Mass but still need to get to work on time.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with the very timely comment by Guy Power.
There are far more cases of liturgical abuse (I would say flagrant liturgical abuse) nowadays than ever there were in "the old days".
This is a fact, not an opinion, and it is incontrovertible.
I grew up in the 1950s and I remember.
I would say it's fine to offer counter criticism to critics of the "old" Mass.
This is an argument they very obviously can't win, so I would say don't let them get away with it.
Always provided it doesn't become an argumentum ad hominem.
Too often, the next stage is exchanging personal insults which is not helpful.
Peoples' tempers will flare, especially when they know they are losing, or have lost, the argument.
Need there be an argument ?
Well, the argument is already going on, and in the highest circles.
But I am sure Guy is already well aware of all this.
Keep the faith.
Fight the good fight.
But let all things be said in charity (if possible !).
(You can usefully remind your interlocutors of the last sentence.)
I knew it wasn't you ;o)
"...8 am Mass..."
"Workers" as in "office workers". I've never lived in a parish that catered for the rest of us.
Yes - please Father! Please stick to the Roman Canon - one more step along the path to restoration (and liturgical sanity)...
Are the other Eucharistic prayers really 'modernist'?
No, I don't think that they are modernist in the sense of being heretical. I have used all of them at one time or another and would have no doctrinal grounds for not doing so in the future.
Some people would say that a modernist mindset influenced some elements of the Novus Ordo and I think there is some justification for saying this.
I have used all of them at one time or another and would have no doctrinal grounds for not doing so in the future.
I think the doctrinal orthodoxy of the new prayers has to be called into question, after reading the comments of Protestant observers at the council - who heaped praise on the new mass after 1969. The Confession of Augsberg of Alsace and Lorraine, stated in a consistory on December 8th 1973:
“We are keen on the utilization of new Eucharistic prayers in which we find ourselves, and which have the advantage of shading off the theology of the sacrifice, which we normally attribute to Catholicism. These prayers invite us to re-trace an evangelical theology of the
sacrifice…”
Why is it that Protestants find the new Eucharistic prayers of Paul VI, so acceptable and not the Roman Canon?
Do you ever use EP IV, Father? It's very much the neglected child. I know it's perceived as being "long" but it's not really. And it's got its own preface. The only thing I really find against it is that it has a certain 60's/70's literalness: I mean, it seems to spell-out the entire salvation story in the infamous "memo to God" fashion, step-by-step, plod, plod. Its institution narrative, for example:
"He always loved those who were his own in the world. When the time came for him to be glorified by you, his heavenly Father, he showed the depth of his love..."
Although not as bad as some of the awful EPs for children's Masses (which in my opinion seem to assume that they're all about 6 and not particularly bright at that) this does have that... oh I dunno... "clunky" feel to it? Inspirational, poetic, ethereal, whatever, it certainly is not.
However, in the post-consecration prayers it has 3 separate references to sacrifice.
But what probably kills it entirely these days is its numerous references to men and mankind, "his" etc. Imagine any poor inclusive-minded priest (oops, Presider) trying to change all those on the fly as he goes along! Jaykay
Of the new Eucharistic Prayers, I like number 4 the best. (You have to use the amended version that does not say "bread and wine" after the consecration.)
Andrew - The fact that an unorthodox interpretation can be put on the new prayers does not make them unorthodox in themselves. In practice, the one that the Protestants like best is number 2 which is the weakest in sacrificial language. But it is also capable of a perfectly orthodox interpretation. The Roman Canon is, of course, unambiguous as you say.
Its institution narrative, for example: "He always loved those who were his own in the world. When the time came for him to be glorified by you, his heavenly Father, he showed the depth of his love..."
While the translation is far from perfect, I think that this passage is a good example of the scriptural text being taken up in prayer. ("When Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end" - John 13:1)
The Latin text of EP IV is much closer to the Vulgate translation of this text.
Post a Comment