There are a number of important principles involved. The most important of these, I think, is that the priest should not himself innovate and change the liturgy sponte sua. Here, I think that there is a crucial distinction to be made. On the one hand, priests might make up new elements that have never been part of the Church's liturgy - for example improvisations in the Eucharistic Prayer, saying "Bertha. The body of Christ", clown outfits, balloons etc.
On the other hand - and I believe that this is genuinely a different issue - there is the question of introducing elements that have long been part of the tradition of the Church into the newer form of the Roman rite. Here I think we can look at several different levels.
1. Elements that are perfectly consonant with the new rubrics
For example: how should you bow? Priests saying the Novus Ordo sometimes step back from the altar and make a profound bow a the "In spiritu humilitatis..." There is no direction saying what sort of bow should be made at the "Supplices te rogamus..." In such cases, a priest familiar with the rubrics of the older form could observe them at the new form without there needing to be any dispute. The older form could give direction at these points where there is none in the newer form.
2. Elements that can be introduced without disturbance
The Holy Father's saying of the prayers during the incensation of the altar is a good example. The priest can silently say the prayer "Dirigatur Domine..." without disturbing anyone. Priests with no experience of the older form would not necessarily know these prayers. But many younger priests would be glad to say them quietly.
Other examples would be: the vesting prayers before Mass, the Aufer a nobis on the way to the altar, the Oramus te when kissing the altar, the Placeat tibi during the "pausa" after communion or on the way back to the sacristy. These elements would genuinely enrich the Novus Ordo for many priests. They would also enrich the rite per accidens for the laity because of their contribution to the devotion of the priest.
3. Elements that could be fairly easily allowed
I understand that there was a proposal (defeated in the event) to allow the old offertory prayers to be said (silently, as is the first option in the Novus Ordo) . I can see no cogent reason not to allow these prayers to be said - nor to forbid the additional gestures and genuflections in the Roman Canon - another possibility that has been proposed before. Cardinal Ratzinger in "The Spirit of the Liturgy" suggested the possibility of allowing the Canon to be said silently. This would be a more significant option because of its impact on the laity who are used to hearing the Canon said out loud; but it would not take long for people to become accustomed to this way of saying the Canon.
Fr Kocik referred to the 1978 answer in Notitiae and my observation that this could lead to ridiculous consequences if interpreted strictly. (See: Is your alb back to front?) Surely, as he hints, this approach to the Novus Ordo has now been thoroughly superceded?
The key principle is that enunciated by Pope Benedict in his accompanying letter to Summorum Pontificum:
What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.This principle can provide us with a key to uncovering the riches of tradition in the newer form of the Roman Rite.
15 comments:
Many good points, Father - also, presumably if the Vicar of Christ is "introducing" certain elements of the Old Rite into his celebration of the Novus Ordo, we can conclude that a rather important precedent is being set?
On the subject of mutual enrichment:
1. How far is the practice of the Holy Father over, for example, the prayers during the incensation, speculation? Does the change of pastoral cross that the Holy Father carries in procession, the changes in vestments etc, represent change with major significance for the development of the liturgy, or just an incidental instituted by a new MC?
2. How can the ordinary form inform the extraordinary form? A particular aspect in my view is that the Eucharistic Prayer of the extraordinary form should be prayed audibly - I do not buy into "saying your own prayers as the priest prays the Canon" as being the authentic participation (that is liturgical in nature)sought by both the Liturgical movement and the texts of Vatican II. In general, I feel that the extraordinary form can learn from the ordinary form on participation.
The silent Canon is a bit of a shock when you first encounter it (I speak as a lay person only fairly recently introduced to the EF) but after a couple of times it is a real "downer" to have to listen to the priest rabbiting on...
(nothing personal, Fr. Tim!)
:-p
YES - and enriching the Ordinary Rite is crucial to the thriving of the Church over the next years. It's not just possible and important - it is a natural and organic development which is already happening, and can be fostered by good priests encouraging one another.
While I am sure it is useful to point out horrors in the Liturgy - (which are not restricted to the Ordinary Form - I went to a funeral Mass in what we were then still calling the Tridentine Rite, and it was fussily interrupted at the end with some poetry and a tesimony-from-a-fond-relative, and other stuff)it is surely even more important in the Catholic blogosphere to swap information about ways of ensuring that things are improved. Since we must assume that this is what the Almighty wants, anything that gets it done must be pleasing to him...and gives joy to those attending the Holy sacrifice too...
The Offertory is probably the most impoverished part of the novus ordo Missal.
The richness of the old offertory prayers is completely missing from the new.
The omission of the "Veni, Sanctificator" is particularly to be deplored.
The new prayers no longer flow seamlessly into the Roman Canon as the old offertory prayers do.
In the novus ordo, much more could be made of the preparation of the gifts after they have been carried up the nave in the offertory procession.
There is a powerful symbolism here which is not made clear enough in the western rite.
The bread and wine become more special with each action, as the priest takes them in his hands into the sanctuary, decants them from their rather everyday containers into the sacred vessels, places them on the altar, and then incenses them. Oh, they are still merely bread and wine, but who would incense ordinary bread and wine ? This is the bread and wine which is destined to be consecrated, and it is already set apart.
The eastern rites always seem to achieve a more powerful symbolism here than the Latin rite.
But then in the eastern rites, the actions are accompanied with prayers of a richness and depth not to be found in the novus ordo.
I see Father's point. Failing a complete restoration of a full and proper offertory rite, the introduction of old prayers where possible is an enrichment of the novus ordo. And there has undoubtedly been too much impoverishment. The Pope evidently thinks the same.
P.S. I see no reason why the faithful should not recite together the prayer to St. Michael, whether after Mass, or at the prayers of the faithful.
This is a rich prayer too, and St. Michael is a doughty warrior and powerful protector. We need his protection now. As never before.
I think your example with the silent Canon in #3 may need a bit of clarification.
Some actions in the Ordinary Form do have explicit differences with the Extraordinary Form. While Cardinal Ratzinger did suggest the possibility of allowing the Canon to be said silently, he also inferred a sentence or two later that this was not to be done unless the liturgical law allowed it. While I have no problem with the silent Canon in general (I'd love to see it "brought back"), the GIRM specifically states that the Canon is to be said so that the faithful can listen to it.
I certainly don't want to be scrupulous about rubrics, but I would say where there is a definite difference between the two forms, the law of that form should be followed.
Joe - how audible is audible? It is only in the last 100 years that microphones have been available so that people can actually listen to the words. This cannot possibly be part of the tradition of participation in the liturgy.
Roman Sacristan - I agree with you about liturgical law and the need to avoid anarchy. that is why I put the silent canon under the heading of "things that could be allowed" - allowed meaning allowed by law.
But still, there is the question of whether microphones can be mandated - this is a purely technological development.
Fr. Tim,
I sometimes feel that the Liturgy of the Word in ordinary form has a tiny bit too much scripture -- especially with the second reading going off at a tangent and rarely being themed with the first reading, psalm and gospel passage.
However, the readings in the ordinary form (and the opportunity to prepare for Mass by studying them in advance in the missal) are something that I have always found fruitful. It has led me in the direction of lectio divina and gaining the plenary indulgence for reading from scripture for half an hour or more.
This is one area where the ordinary form may have the potential to enrich the extraordinary. Providing that scripture is presented in digestible form, with proper alignment of the Old and New Testament extracts. Maybe it's time to revise the lectionary so that it can be used for both forms?
Father:
I think your post gives me the opportunity to ask the following regarding the Oramus te. Many altars today have no relics. What should then be done with the words "quorum reliquiae hic sunt"?
I'd love to throw the microphone on our altar in the nearest bin! The priest is forever fiddling about with it as well.
Paul Knight
An afterthought.
This post discusses mutual enrichment.
I wonder how far, and in what way, the Novus Ordo could enrich the "old" Mass.
There must be many opinions (or do I mean 'diverse sensibilities' ?) on this.
Fr Tim
I think you are quite right to point out that the modern development of the microphone makes audibility possible when it wasn't in the past.
I am not old enough to remember it (!), but I understand that side-by-side Latin-vernacular missals were coming into use in the period leading up to Vatican II. This, it could be argued, was a natural development within the (now extraordinary form) of the Roman Rite that enabled the lay faithful to follow (=form of particpation) the prayers of the Mass, including those said inaudibly. Could an audibly spoken Canon in the (currently celebrated) Extraordinary Form be seen as a natural continuation of this development in the tradition, the tradition being something that grows rather than remaining static?
In suggesting this as a possible part of "mutual enrichment" I remain respectful of the current legal situation which would expect the extraordinary form to be celebrated according to its current rubrics. But those rubrics could be changed.
I do agree with the observations of Peterhwright on the offertory - the ordinary form does have a potential here that is not often expressed to the full.
May I ask why is it all the 'reform of the deform' crowd want mutual enrichment of the old rite, to be all the failed innovations of post-1962? Can they not take the hint: "if it ain't broken, don't fix it!"
Just let us worship in peace till 2168 and we can then think of "reform" ;-)
Joe,
Should the OF influence the EF by introducing an audible Canon?
Sacrosanctum Concilium did not lead the charge for direct changes to the Canon in the name of participation. When active participation is referred to, it is to encourage the people to take part "by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence." (#30)
It is silent about "active participation" in the Canon in the way you suggest.
Same with the vernacular, (see#36), the Canon is not the object of discussion. It says that extending the limits of the employment of the mother tongue "will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants. . ."
What happened later was much more than that, but that is why there is a big discussion about re-evaluating the reform of the liturgy in light of the Council. Let's fix the new form first. There's plenty of time later for the EF. Along with that I would suggest that we moderns in the pews have something good to learn about traditional attitudes about participation in the liturgy.
I would not see the introduction of the Canon spoke out loud as an "enrichment". This aspect of the TLM is one of the most strange to start with, for those who are unused to it. but after a while, it becomes quite indispensable. The silent canon was regarded as essential by Dom Gueranger.
As to the lectionary - I think that what we have got in the new rite is often rather like a bible reading scheme, especially in "ordinary time". The older lectionaries were interwoven with the antiphons, the divine office and the patristic understanding of the various feasts and seasons. The cycle of readings in the TLM needs to be retained and rediscovered.
Perhaps one of the ways in which the celebration of the new rite enriches the old is that the priest is constrained to utter the words with meaning and intent, rather than gabble through them.
Post a Comment