A most interesting post the other day from the New Liturgical Movement: The Assumption in Maria Vesperbild with Archbishop Ranjith. There are pictures there and plenty of text regarding this important celebration.The thing that caught my eye was the observation that Archbishop Ranjith genuflected both before and after the elevation of the sacred species. Gregor Kollmorgen at NLM kindly linked to my post "Is your alb back to front?" in relation to the inclusion of elements from the older form of the Roman Liturgy when celebrating the newer form.
I would suggest that there is something more going on here. It would be hard to justify the double genuflection according to the rubrics of the newer form of Mass, or even as something "not specified" in those rubrics. However, re-introducing older elements of the liturgy into the newer form is very different from "making it up" as you go along. I hope that there are many more examples from senior ecclesiatical figures allowing us, without scruple, to enrich the newer form of the Mass with elements from the older form.
7 comments:
Couldn't agree more. Sensible re-introductions of some elements of the older liturgy would do much to enrich the modern rite. Genuflection before and after the elevations with accompanying ringing of the sanctus bell and the familiar clink-clink of the thurible(if used) would add much emphasis to the most sacred parts of the mass and could hardly be considered controversial.
Another sensible re-introduction would be genuflecting at the Incarnatus in the Creed throughout the year. This was dropped as early as 1965 for no good reason as far as I can see.
Father - as ever an insightful post! I would, however, want to be cautious about encouraging this 'unofficial' use of older ceremonial in the new rite. Anglicans know all-too-well that this leads to an unhappy situation of clergy doing weird things that they have 'read about' somewhere or seen someone else perform.
Instead, we would do well to pray for a new General Instruction for the new translation - one that, like the third edition of the Missal, is more sympathetic to liturgical history and tradition.
I am sure what you were suggesting is merely a precursor to this!
I've tagged you for a very short meme here!
I think Our Lady has been inspiring more than one centre of excellence on her special feast... The Birmingham Oratory used silent ad orientem Penitential Rite, and a silent canon with the choir singing the Sanctus / Benedictus either side of a sung consecration. See my blog for more details.
I did the pre-elevation genuflections in the parish on the Sunday after the Merton conference. (I've been away a lot since then and so have not done it often at public Masses since.)
A couple of observations:
1. it is something that is permitted in the Roman Rite (albeit in the EF) and therefore cannot be strictly illegal (i.e. contra legem). It's not a liturgical innovation.
2. After doing it, I felt I had exercised a right to worship the Lord that had been - unjustly - taken from me in the reform.
3. I received positive comment after Mass: my genuflections had added to the reverence of the Mass, bringing extra pause and time for worship by the people.
Since then, I've had a bit of debate with a good, orthodox, visiting priest. But now that you have brought our attention to Ranjith's actions, don't you think we have greater justification for doing our bit for mutual enrichment?
Ranjith is one of those who are not afraid to challenge Churchmen to look at the liturgical changes on their own merits (or de-merits) in light of liturgical history. As Secretary for the CDWDS and 3rd in line with regards to liturgical authority (behind HH and HE Arinze), one cannot assume ignorance of the law or negligence of office.
I hope this bishop gets a red hat. He has taken a lot of hits for the Holy Father and the Holy Faith.
As much as I like to see things like this, the question is where does the celebrant "draw the line?" At what point could you just do an Extraordinary form Mass and just say you were doing a Novus Ordo and just adding in things from the older form?
Yes, I'm exaggerating, by flipping your "is your alb back to front" on it's head, but there's always that pesky "Notitiae 51."
Yet, I hear that regarding the specific incensation part, neither Pope John Paul II, nor Pope Benedict XVI, nor Cardinal Arenze follow the instruction of the notitiae (since I hear that they use the older form of incensing the gifts). If they appear to make null and void the initial specific question about incensation, does that also make the generalization part ("When the rubrics of the Missal of Paul VI say nothing or say little on particulars in some places, it is not to be inferred that the former rite should be observed") null and void as well? At the very least it certainly casts it into doubt.
I don't want to be legalistic, but I would like to understand when a "change" can be made to the Novus Ordo and when it can't.
Post a Comment