Canon

[MarkThompson]

can’t you sing antiphonally Ad orientem?

Well, theoretically you could sing antiphonally with the groups facing directly away from each other, or with one group indoors and the other outside shouting in through the window. But it is easiest to hear someone and pray with them when you are facing each other. Clerical and monastic choirs have been arranged this way for over a thousand years. Why should the arrangement be anything else?

 

[ProVobis]

This is not what the Church teaches, nor is it what the Church herself insists upon.

From Trent, Session 22:

ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS

DOCTRINE
…
CHAPTER V.

On the solemn ceremonies of the Sacrifice of the Mass.

And whereas such is the nature of man, that, without external helps, he cannot easily be raised to the meditation of divine things; therefore has holy Mother Church instituted certain rites, to wit that certain things be pronounced in the mass in a** low**, and others in a louder,** tone**.
…

CANON IX.–If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.

thecounciloftrent.com/ch22.htm

 

[iohanne]

Awe is met not with silence in some cultures and reverence is not shown by silence in all cultures. To remain silent in some places and cultures would be considered irreverent and disrespectful. Silence in the presence of something awsome is not a universal response but a cultural response and the Church has never forced one culture to adapt to the expectations of another culture.

There are threads here on CAF with personal accounts from those who have attended Mass in the interior parts of South America where the response to Christ’s presence on the altar was anything but silence. The coast of South America has a European culture and the response there is silence. This is not true for some of the native populations and the Church does not force the Anglo-European norms on other cultures.

You should experience the sign of peace at a Mass in the Haitian community. I’ve never been hugged by so many women… We might find it irreverent but it is simply part of their culture, and to not respond in kind would be seen as disrespectful and uncharitable. At the meal afterward, a beautiful young girl put her arm around me and led me to the food table where she personally served me. It was nerve wracking for me, made me a bit uncomfortable, but it is part of their culture.

The point is that the Church does not force the cultural norms of one culture onto another.

We may be Catholic but we are speaking of the Roman Catholic Mass. As a liturgical tradition, it has its roots in the way the Roman Christians worshipped. For example, Ethiopians and Copts and Arabs can ululate and this is a perfectly awesome expression of joy and reverence in their rite and I applaud, encourage and am thrilled when they worship in their way. But I maintain that it’s foreign to our liturgical expression. I’m Filipino and not at all an Anglo-European so you’re preaching to the choir about what it means to have various customs to express joy. We’re loud and we kiss each other and we hug each other very much like the Haitians. And yet, be it EF or OF, Filipinos will be silent at certain points of the Mass. You’re setting up a false dichotomy where there isn’t one. Clearly, we express joy in song. We chant the praises of God in the Gloria and in the Sanctus. Yet there are moments for song and moments for silence, encoded in the liturgical culture of a given Rite. There is joy and noisy joy and there is awe and dumbfounded silence. This encoding may not be universal (though to be honest with you, even the Copts and Ethiopians and Antiochian Orthodox who may ululate during processions and ordinations, will keep silence at very high points in the Divine Liturgy), but it is definitely a part of our Roman heritage. The liturgy should reflect that.

One can go too far into the line of thinking and throw out Roman vestments, Gregorian chant and all other inheritances of the Roman Rite. To say that the Church does not force the cultural norms of one culture into another is completely false. Think about the Anglo-Saxon Christians when they were first being evangelised. They’re being spoken to by these Romans, wearing Roman magisterial vestments, being forced to worship in a language that isn’t their own. It’s as foreign to them as you can get. They had been, up until recently, nothing but barbarians to the Romans, excluded from the dynamism of the Roman Empire and now they were being asked to put away their paganism and follow an imperial Roman state religion and adopt their forms of worship and piety. Think about the Slavs. Byzantium was not and is not their civilization yet their liturgical customs are borrowed from Byzantium and their piety is now heavily Hellenised and mysteriological - a far cry from their ancestral paganism. These kinds of things are neutral in the history of the Church, neither necessarily bad nor necessarily good and they carry both pros and cons. The Anglo-Saxon Christians and the Celtic Churches and the North African Churches eventually adopted to the Roman cultic habits. Was that a bad thing? We could hardly think so today. It can get bad, yes, as when widescale Latinisations were being imposed on several eastern rites. The really bad cases in particular were the attempts to Latinise the Ethiopians Orthodox Christians as well as the St. Thomas Christians in India. But each case really stands on its own.

My point is that almost everything we have in Christianity is received and handed down from our forefathers in the faith and from those who evangelised our respective nations and brought us out of the darkness of paganism: our Holy Scriptures, our ecclesiastical writings, our saints and finally, our liturgy and the piety encoded therein. It may be wrong to impose that on other Christian cultures with a thriving liturgical piety separate and different from our own but it certainly is pretty much what has been going on for much of Christian history in almost every Christian Church, east and west, when it comes to evangelising peoples out of their native paganism.

 

[JReducation]

I understand that it’s confusing. We have to remember is that long before there were parishes staffed by secular priests, the majority of churches were either cathedral churches or churches attached to religious houses.

The Benedictines had the monastery church where the monks and laity attended mass, with the laity sitting in a section behind the monks or the church could be cruciform so that the monks were on the sides of the sanctuary.

The mendicants were brotherhoods. They always had priests, but only the Dominicans were founded as an order for priests. The other mendicants were founded as brotherhoods where the focus was on the common life and the apostolate. The priests they had were men who had entered these orders because they wanted to be brothers. Since the focus was on brotherhood, they avoided distinctions between the laity and the priest, as well as between the ordained religious and the lay religious.

When they were first founded the friars (brothers) did everything in common and avoided singularization of the priests as much as possible. During mass, the parts of the mass the the alter server normally says were prayed by the community. The canon was said aloud so that the entire brotherhood could follow along.

As these houses became more common, they too opened their doors to the laity, just like the Benedictines had done before them. The friary chapels served as small churches. They were not as grand as the monastery churches.

When the liturgy was reformed at Trent and Pope Pius V tweaked it, the monks and the mendicants were allowed to keep their manner of celebrating the mass. That’s how we came upon the word “form”. These were not rites. They were the Latin Rite, but variations of the Tridentine form. Dominicans, Carmelites and Carthusians had their own rites. The other mendicants and monks used the Latin Rite, but they had details that were particular to them.

After Vatican II, when the Tridentine Form was not in use, these monastic and mendicant communities developed their own forms of the Pauline Mass. Now that we have both, the Pauline and the Tridentine Forms, these communities are free to celebrate the Tridentine form as they did in the past, provided that the superior grants permission. The monks and mendicants have more choices than anyone else.

They can use the Roman Tridentine form or their own version of the Tridentine form. They can use the Roman Pauline form or they can use their own version of the Pauline form.

As the end of the day, the differences are so small the the sublteties are lost on most people, except for the fact that the canon is said using a microphone so that everyone can hear it.

The only time that monks and mendicants prayed the canon silently was when they celebrated without the other religious. The idea has always been that the ordained monk or friar serves his brothers by leading them in the sacrifice of the mass. He is not above his brothers or apart from them, he is at their service.

Often, friars or monks who celebrate for the laity, either the OF or the EF will try as much as possible to include as many lay people as they can in the celebration, because they do not cease to be brothers just because they’re ordained. They see themselves as serving their brothers and sisters, just as they serve their brothers in community, by leading in worship. There is a very strong focus on the congregation being united with the priest as one brotherhood, regardless of the form. This is an ancient monastic and mendicant spirituality.

This is not common among diocesan, secular priests, canons regular or priests who belong to orders of priests. They were never founded with the idea of building a brotherhood. They were founded for the purpose of ministry. They follow the standard format of the liturgy whether it’s the EF or the OF.

Today, especially in the USA, there are less monks and friars and more diocesan priests and priests who belong to congregations. In the 20th century our parish system became more organized so that people are attached to parishes and not to religious houses. For the average lay person, a mass with mendicants or monks is an experience that they will never have.

View attachment 13024

If you notice there is a microphone, because his voice was becoming weaker. However, because there was no such a thing as a clip-on mike, the microphone was placed close enough to pick up the voice, but out of the way.

Prior to the days of the microphone, the friars would simply speak in an audible voice.

Fraternally

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Sirach2]

TimothyH:

This is not what the Church teaches, nor is it what the Church herself insists upon.

I agree, Timothy. The Church has revised its “Ordinary Form” liturgy, which is always her Divine Authority to regulate the “discipline” or “form” in which the sacred liturgy is celebrated. However, the “essence” never changes.

Johanne and ProVobis are speaking about the Tridentine “form” but failed to mention that the discipline was lawfully changed in the Ordinary Form. Maybe they are unfamiliar with the Motu Proprio Sacram Liturgiam that mandates the Church’s change in discipline, or the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy which promulgated the changes, and clarified the theology behind them. It is an error to promote that the form of the Tridentine liturgy be instituted or adopted in the Ordinary Form. We must respect these differences and allow each person to be guided by the Holy Spirit to that form in which they are most comfortable giving worship to God.

The many documents on liturgical questions that have been published and are well known to all demonstrate how it was the ceaseless concern of our predecessors in the supreme pontificate, of ourselves, and of the holy shepherds to preserve diligently, to cultivate and to renew the sacred liturgy according to need. Another proof of this solicitude is given by the Liturgical Constitution which the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council has approved by general consent and which we in the solemn public session of December 4, 1963, ordered to be promulgated.

This lively interest stems from the fact that "in the earthly liturgy we take part in a foretaste of that heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the holy city of Jerusalem toward which we journey as pilgrims, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God, a minister of the holies and of the true tabernacle. We sing a hymn to the Lord’s glory with all the warriors of the heavenly army. [Rev. 4:8] Venerating the memory of the saints, we hope for some part and fellowship with them. We eagerly await the Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ, until He, our life, shall appear and we too will appear with Him in glory" ( Article 8, CONSTITUTION ON THE LITURGY).

While I could quote many examples of exhuberant, exultant worship, I think the point is clear, and I pray that we abandon forever the ceaseless antipathy toward other “lawful” forms. It is very painful to read about these divisions in the Body of Christ.

 

[henrikhank]

When they were first founded the friars (brothers) did everything in common and avoided singularization of the priests as much as possible. During mass, the parts of the mass the the alter server normally says were prayed by the community. The canon was said aloud so that the entire brotherhood could follow along.

As these houses became more common, they too opened their doors to the laity, just like the Benedictines had done before them. The friary chapels served as small churches. They were not as grand as the monastery churches.

When the liturgy was reformed at Trent and Pope Pius V tweaked it, the monks and the mendicants were allowed to keep their manner of celebrating the mass. That’s how we came upon the word “form”. These were not rites. They were the Latin Rite, but variations of the Tridentine form. Dominicans, Carmelites and Carthusians had their own rites. The other mendicants and monks used the Latin Rite, but they had details that were particular to them.

After Vatican II, when the Tridentine Form was not in use, these monastic and mendicant communities developed their own forms of the Pauline Mass. Now that we have both, the Pauline and the Tridentine Forms, these communities are free to celebrate the Tridentine form as they did in the past, provided that the superior grants permission. The monks and mendicants have more choices than anyone else.

They can use the Roman Tridentine form or their own version of the Tridentine form. They can use the Roman Pauline form or they can use their own version of the Pauline form.

As the end of the day, the differences are so small the the sublteties are lost on most people, except for the fact that the canon is said using a microphone so that everyone can hear it.

The only time that monks and mendicants prayed the canon silently was when they celebrated without the other religious. The idea has always been that the ordained monk or friar serves his brothers by leading them in the sacrifice of the mass. He is not above his brothers or apart from them, he is at their service.

Any videos with religious saying/celebrating Mass like this?

 

[henrikhank]

Well, theoretically you could sing antiphonally with the groups facing directly away from each other, or with one group indoors and the other outside shouting in through the window. But it is easiest to hear someone and pray with them when you are facing each other. Clerical and monastic choirs have been arranged this way for over a thousand years. Why should the arrangement be anything else?

so only lay people should have their seats Ad orientem?

 

[YoungTradCath]

so only lay people should have their seats Ad orientem?

No.

He is saying that the Divine Office (Liturgy of the Hours) was never prayed ad orientem, and is just trying to illustrate why.

Even before Vatican II, people faced each other when praying the Divine Office in common.

 

[ProVobis]

… that mandates the Church’s change in discipline, or the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy which promulgated the changes, and clarified the theology behind them.

Really? What exactly is the theology behind using microphones and modern amplification to circumvent explicit Church doctrine on keeping certain parts of the Mass in a low tone? God is not hard-of-hearing so I gather there are other reasons for doing so that have nothing to do with theology.

 

[Sirach2]

ProVobis:

Really? What exactly is the theology behind using microphones and modern amplification to circumvent explicit Church doctrine on keeping certain parts of the Mass in a low tone? God is not hard-of-hearing so I gather there are other reasons for doing so that have nothing to do with theology.

Did you miss the point in my post about the Church having Divine Authority to change the “discipline” of the liturgy, and the fact that She lawfully made changes to the Ordinary Form?

Your argument is not with me, but with the Church with whom you apparently disagree. After 45+ years, would you still attempt to alter this liturgy to make it complicit with your idea of Trent and the Tridentine liturgy?

CANON IX.–If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone,** is to be condemned**; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.

I removed your bold which attempts to say that anything but a “low tone” should be anathema – that is selective reading, chosen to proof text your point. Put the bold where Trent addressed its true anathema.

While you are pin-pointing material from Councils, let’s look at Vatican 1.

1. Wherefore we teach and declare that,

• by divine ordinance,
• the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
• this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate.
• Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively,
• are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
• but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

KIndly reflect upon “my” bolded reference and refrain from attributing to the Church a discipline that applies only to the *Extraordinary Form *at the present time, or until such time as the Church Herself is moved by the Holy Spirit to change Her discipline in the Ordinary Form.

:thankyou:

 

[JReducation]

Any videos with religious saying/celebrating Mass like this?

I have never seen one. Why would mendicants and monks videotape their liturgy in the first place?

When you’re a friar or a monk, you learn the mass by observation and by having a professor of liturgy walk you through it. It’s not done with videos.

There are some clips of parts of the current EF celebrated by the Franciscans of the Immaculate, but they are not the entire mass. The ones that I have seen don’t give you a panoramic view of what’s going on. They’re all closeup shots of the friars on the sanctuary. What you do notice is that all of the friars in the house are on the sanctuary in some capacity. This again is that whole idea of the community being one brotherhood. If there are sisters, they too are on the sanctuary, usually to the side where they lead in the singing… That is, providing that the sanctuary is large enough.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[iohanne]

I agree, Timothy. The Church has revised its “Ordinary Form” liturgy, which is always her Divine Authority to regulate the “discipline” or “form” in which the sacred liturgy is celebrated. However, the “essence” never changes.

Johanne and ProVobis are speaking about the Tridentine “form” but failed to mention that the discipline was lawfully changed in the Ordinary Form. Maybe they are unfamiliar with the Motu Proprio Sacram Liturgiam that mandates the Church’s change in discipline, or the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy which promulgated the changes, and clarified the theology behind them. It is an error to promote that the form of the Tridentine liturgy be instituted or adopted in the Ordinary Form. We must respect these differences and allow each person to be guided by the Holy Spirit to that form in which they are most comfortable giving worship to God.

While I could quote many examples of exhuberant, exultant worship, I think the point is clear, and I pray that we abandon forever the ceaseless antipathy toward other “lawful” forms. It is very painful to read about these divisions in the Body of Christ.

You’re still setting up a false dichotomy where there isn’t one. The Tridentine Form has exuberant, exultant worship in the Gloria and the Sanctus and even the Creed. Yet both the EF and the OF have the congregation being quiet during the Canon, pre- and post-consecration. The only difference is the Priest’s inaudible vs. audible prayers.

Making the argument by culture is futile because wherever Christian Churches of Apostolic origins have spread, the Eucharistic Prayer or the Anaphora remains a solemn moment where the congregation is mostly silent. Whether in Haiti or the Philippines or China or Europe or Japan, whatever joy was present during the Gloria and Sanctus (which, again, does and can exist in the EF) or during the processional and recessional hymns, gives way to silence at the moment. As mentioned in my last post, this has been the cultic habit of Christianity always and everywhere, east and west. The difference again is the Priests inaudible vs. audible prayers. As to that specific issue…

I never questioned the lawfulness and licitness of the change. I questioned the efficacy of that change. Are people more responsive, more prayerful, more meditative - and I dare to say - more exuberant and more exultant just because they can hear what the priest is saying? I would really, really, really hesitate to say “Yes” given what I see and hear at almost every NO I attend.

 

[Albino_Luciani]

I agree, Timothy. The Church has revised its “Ordinary Form” liturgy, which is always her Divine Authority to regulate the “discipline” or “form” in which the sacred liturgy is celebrated. However, the “essence” never changes.

The Magisterium is the vehicle that accomplishes the actual ‘handing down’ of Tradition, and the Liturgy is the most important organ of the ordinary Magisterium. The confused notion of Magisterium that prevails in the post-conciliar Church underlies the doctrinal crisis and liturgical abuses which have become the principal marks of recognition for the so-called ‘Conciliar Church’.

That the doctrinal confusion has reached its height is attested to by the fact that even a Cardinal of the Roman Church admits that the problem of the liturgy is “very disturbing”, but then justifies the status quo with a vague appeal to obedience to the Magisterium. Yet it is precisely the teaching of the Church’s past Magisterium which condemns the liturgy presently being used in our churches for not adequately professing the Catholic Faith, for not adhering to Catholic Tradition, and for compromising the validity of the sacraments. -Father Paul Kramer

 

[Sirach2]

Johanne:

The Tridentine Form has exuberant, exultant worship in the Gloria and the Sanctus and even the Creed. Yet both the EF and the OF have the congregation being quiet during the Canon, pre- and post-consecration**. The only difference is the Priest’s inaudible vs. audible prayers.**

Okay, we agree on that point. if that is your meaning; i.e., that in the pre and post consecration, the congregation should be silent. Indeed they are silent, without an opportunity in the OF for the congregation’s response, except to proclaim the “Mystery of Faith.” And I note your agreement that the difference between the OF and EF is in vocal or non-vocal praying of the Canon by the priest

The confusion arose when you made several statements that seemed to call for silence beyond the Canon, which prompted my responses to the contrary.

Liturgical prayer is public prayer, yes, but public prayer must not necessarily be out loud.

Yet the sacrifice of our eucharistic liturgy is the greatest miracle of all and really, the only proper response to the descent of the fiery and eternal Word onto our altars is awestruck silence -

The silence of the Tridentine Mass forces the congregation to struggle in order to get something out of it - a struggle that is more fruitful, in my opinion,

During the offertory and the Canon, you don’t have to be praying and hearing all the exact words of the priest - he’s the priest, not you.

Hopefully, we understand each other’s POV; i.e., that silence is not requisite in the OF liturgy except at the consecration, despite the wishes of those who prefer that it be maintained throughout the liturgy. It is a totally different - and lawful - discipline.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Hopefully, we understand each other’s POV; i.e., that silence is not requisite in the OF liturgy except at the consecration, despite the wishes of those who prefer that it be maintained throughout the liturgy. It is a totally different - and lawful - discipline.

Is it really? Compare your average (key word) Sunday OF mass to any EF Solemn Mass or Missa Cantata and you will find that the points in the liturgies where silence is maintained are basically exactly the same. Opening Rites/whatever they’re called, readings, homily (hopefully), etc.

 

[Sirach2]

Is it really? Compare your average (key word) Sunday OF mass to any EF Solemn Mass or Missa Cantata and you will find that the points in the liturgies where silence is maintained are basically exactly the same. Opening Rites/whatever they’re called, readings, homily (hopefully), etc.

The difference is that the priest prays the EF silently or in a very low voice unheard except for perhaps those nearest to him; whereas the OF is audible, prayed with amplification. Are you saying that the Solemn Mass in the EF is NOT silently prayed? I have not been to one in many years, so perhaps I am misunderstanding.

 

[YoungTradCath]

The difference is that the priest prays the EF silently or in a very low voice unheard except for perhaps those nearest to him; whereas the OF is audible, prayed with amplification. Are you saying that the Solemn Mass in the EF is NOT silently prayed? I have not been to one in many years, so perhaps I am misunderstanding.

The only prayers silently prayed in the EF are the Offertory prayers (just as in the OF) and the Canon of Mass. There are other prayers that are prayed in a normal voice, loud nor quiet, but if the church is quiet as it should be then everyone can hear them.

But how we have collects in the OF prayed aloud, they are prayed aloud in the EF, as well as several other prayers.

Solemn Masses by their very nature are always filled with music, whether chant or polyphony, and most of the mass texts are crystal clear in volume. You probably have this image of a Low Mass in your mind which, yes, are much quieter and generally musicless. But what you will find on most Sundays in EF parishes is at least one Solemn Mass or Missa Cantata, with perhaps several Low Masses as well. Low Masses are generally also weekday masses.

 

[ProVobis]

The only prayers silently prayed in the EF are the Offertory prayers (just as in the OF) and the Canon of Mass. There are other prayers that are prayed in a normal voice, loud nor quiet, but if the church is quiet as it should be then everyone can hear them.

And with the ad orientem position, the church is forced to be extra quiet.

 

[JReducation]

And with the ad orientem position, the church is forced to be extra quiet.

I’m not so sure that I agree with this. I believe that it has more to do with architecture. When you go into places like the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception or St Patrick’s Cathedral and other churches that have that ambiance of a church, it seems to calm people. When you enter some of the more modern constructions that look like auditoriums, you don’t get that sense of the sacred.

I think the architecture more than the direction in which you face has the big effect on people. Our chapel is not built ad orientem. In fact, the altar is on the north wall. But it has a very mellow environment that invites people to sit quietly.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Sirach2]

YoungTradCath:

Is it really? Compare your average (key word) Sunday OF mass to any EF Solemn Mass
The only prayers silently prayed in the EF are the Offertory prayers (just as in the OF) and the Canon of Mass.

Using your “keyword,” the average Sunday OF mass is not at all comparable to the average EF liturgy. In citing the Solemn Mass of the EF, this is the exception, not the average. That’s like comparing silk to denim. Now if you want to compare OF Solemn Masses to EF Solemn Masses, there would be much difference.

Thank you for your explanation, but I note this difference. Our offertory prayers are not silent. If the congregation is singing a hymn, the priest will pray them to himself, but if there is no hymn, the prayers are audible.
Contrasting the two, our canon is prayed audibly, whereas yours is silent. I still don’t see why any of us would be quibbling over this. It reminds me of the nursery rhyme:

Jack Sprat could eat no fat, his wife could eat no lean,
And so between the two of them, they licked the platter clean.

Each to their own preference, but between the two choices, the worship of Almighty God is the ultimate goal. There should be complete unity of mind and heart between us as Catholics, for brethren in the Lord are we!