Canon

[iohanne]

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.

Yeah - I think people are getting confused between the Missa Lecta and the Missa Cantata/Solemnis. The Missa Solemnis can have chant and polyphony and is exuberant and exultant and yet dignified. There is a strange phenomenon in America that I’ve read about where American Catholics really don’t like singing, particularly in the EF, but in most places around the world where a Sunday EF is offered with all the works (i.e. chant/polyphone, incense, deacons chanting the Gospel, etc.) the congregation has learned at least some of the chants to be able to sing along! And as mentioned in my previous posts, singing along with the Latin chant can and should be accompanied by actual personal prayer and meditation.

Again, the distinction is specifically certain prayers which are said inaudibly. This is a tradition, which again I’ve mentioned, in all Churches and Rites - east and west. Two weeks ago, I attended a Greek Orthodox Church and flipped through the liturgical book and all the prayers that were italicised were the inaudible prayers of the priest. Same thing when I attended the Coptic Orthodox Church just last week. Needless to say that both Churches had paragraphs and in the Anaphora (what we refer to as the Canon) there were literally pages of italicised texts. Now, both of these Churches had things going on on top of the priest doing his own thing and the EF of the Roman Rite does indeed have the Introits and Graduals and Offertory chants and the Sanctus sung over some of the priests personal prayers. Since we have, over the centuries, reduced our psalm propers like the introit and gradual and offertory to just a few verses and their antiphon, the Canon - the longest inaudible prayer of the priest - has quite a bit of it in silence without a chant over on top of it. That’s why in the EF according to the 1962, the Canon is mostly silent by both the congregation and the priest.

 

[ProVobis]

I believe that it has more to do with architecture.

Of course.

They are different ways of quieting the crowd.

 

[iohanne]

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.

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.

Yes, I admit that the way I have framed my languages in those quotes which you’ve pointed out may have given the wrong impression - there is plenty of chant and music and congregational responses and incense and glory in the EF, particularly outside of America where it is more common for congregations to participate in the chant rather than just remaining quiet. I was speaking specifically about the Canon.

 

[YoungTradCath]

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!

The phrase “key word” clearly applied to the OF. The phrase modified that, not EF. That is how I intended it, and I am sorry if you read otherwise.

Solemn Mass and Missa Cantata are EXACTLY the same except that (at least in the strictest interpretation) there are only four candles used in Missas Cantata instead of six, and there is no deacon and subdeacon at Missas Cantata; instead, their ministries are absorbed by the priest. MOST EF communities have at least a Missa Cantata each and every Sunday, if not a Solemn Mass. What we are arguing here is sound, specifically musicality and the loudness of the clerics in saying/singing their prayers. Musically-speaking, Solemn Mass and Missas Cantata are exactly the same, and so for this music discussion I will treat them the same.

There’s a problem: there is no such thing as a Solemn OF Mass. It doesn’t exist. You have to create it. Take bits and pieces of nice stuff here and there and paste it together and hope you get a good product. In the EF there is such a thing as a Solemn Mass (musically equivalent to a Missa Cantata, only diverges in other areas) and it is specifically laid out in the Missal in what it consists of. So you can’t compare a “Solemn” OF Mass to a Solemn EF Mass in the technical sense because Solemn OF’s don’t exist in the technical sense; there are no distinctions in the OF as to “level” of mass as there are in the EF.

Congrats but I must ask, are the majority of your Sunday masses offertory-song-less? That would be actually out of the ordinary in the OF on a Sunday. Most parishes do sing something or other during the offertory on Sundays.

My point in the quoted post was this:

On any average Sunday at St.OF Parish in Anytown, USA, there is an Entrance, one of those responsorial psalm things, (Sequence), Alleluia/Tract, Offertory, Communion and Exit hymn or whatever, all sung. On any average Sunday at St.EF Parish in Anytown, USA (as I said, most EF parishes offer a Solemn Mass or Missa Cantata EVERY Sunday) there is an Introit, Offertory, Gradual, (Sequence), Alleluia/Tract, Offertory, and Communion, all sung. Often there is some sort of recessional song, although there needn’t be (just as there needn’t be in the OF). So in reality, there is just as much music on an average Sunday at an EF parish as there is on an average Sunday at an OF parish. That is all I was trying to say.

 

[Sirach2]

YoungTradCath:

Congrats but I must ask, are the majority of your Sunday masses offertory-song-less? That would be actually out of the ordinary in the OF on a Sunday. Most parishes do sing something or other during the offertory on Sundays.

It depends on the priest and the organist. I have been to song-less offertories with the priest praying the offertory audibly, those that have soft organ accompaniment while the priest prays quietly, and those with hymns. We have closed quite a few parishes in my rural area, so many folks travel to nearby parishes to accomodate their schedules for different mass times. The Bishop set this up specifically so that in any given area, there are multiple choices available for both the vigil and on Sunday.

There’s a problem: there is no such thing as a Solemn OF Mass. It doesn’t exist.

Seems I must correct a misunderstanding on my end, too. By that, I meant the very beautiful liturgies we celebrate here on Solemn Feasts (note that the Divine Office calls them “Solemnities” so it is in that sense that I used my wording.) I would like to videotape the liturgies my priest celebrates during the Easter Octave, where even the daily mass is extraordinarily beautiful and “solemn.” It doesn’t get any better!

Well, YTC, this has been a very interesting discussion. I have not been to the EF in many years, so much of my understanding comes from people like yourself who are able to attend and share your experience of it.

 

[JReducation]

Yeah - I think people are getting confused between the Missa Lecta and the Missa Cantata/Solemnis. The Missa Solemnis can have chant and polyphony and is exuberant and exultant and yet dignified. There is a strange phenomenon in America that I’ve read about where American Catholics really don’t like singing, particularly in the EF, but in most places around the world where a Sunday EF is offered with all the works (i.e. chant/polyphone, incense, deacons chanting the Gospel, etc.) the congregation has learned at least some of the chants to be able to sing along! And as mentioned in my previous posts, singing along with the Latin chant can and should be accompanied by actual personal prayer and meditation.

Again, the distinction is specifically certain prayers which are said inaudibly. This is a tradition, which again I’ve mentioned, in all Churches and Rites - east and west. Two weeks ago, I attended a Greek Orthodox Church and flipped through the liturgical book and all the prayers that were italicised were the inaudible prayers of the priest. Same thing when I attended the Coptic Orthodox Church just last week. Needless to say that both Churches had paragraphs and in the Anaphora (what we refer to as the Canon) there were literally pages of italicised texts. Now, both of these Churches had things going on on top of the priest doing his own thing and the EF of the Roman Rite does indeed have the Introits and Graduals and Offertory chants and the Sanctus sung over some of the priests personal prayers. Since we have, over the centuries, reduced our psalm propers like the introit and gradual and offertory to just a few verses and their antiphon, the Canon - the longest inaudible prayer of the priest - has quite a bit of it in silence without a chant over on top of it. That’s why in the EF according to the 1962, the Canon is mostly silent by both the congregation and the priest.

Are you sure about this part? As I was trained, the congregation is not to pray the canon along with the priest, even silently. The canon is prayed only by the presider, whether audibly or not and whether EF or OF. In the OF, there are parts where the concelebrants speak, but for the most part, they are also silent. In the whole, the Eucharistic prayer is not to be prayed by the congregation, even if the congregation is a group of priests.

Besides being taught this way, in my own community we have brothers who are priests. Only the presider prays the Eucharistic prayer. The rest of the community remains silent, including those who are ordained and no one is allowed to pray along with the presider, even silently. You can certainly follow along, if you have the words in front of you, but you may not pray them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

Are you sure about this part? As I was trained, the congregation is not to pray the canon along with the priest, even silently. The canon is prayed only by the presider, whether audibly or not and whether EF or OF.

This is my understanding as well.

In one parish I once attended, the congregation started praying along with the priest at the “Through Him and with Him…” part until the bishop, once he found out about it, had the priest announce at all the sermons that they were not to do that.

Praying along with the priest at all his parts might have good intentions and may even sound reverent but it’s definitely a no-no.

 

[iohanne]

I phrased that awkwardly. I meant to say that both the priest and the congregation were silent.

 

[Old_Salt]

Here is a good piece on what Dom Preper Gueranger and the then Cardinal Ratzinger have to say on the Silent Canon as wriiten by Fr Tim Finigan:

“One of the most noticeable differences between the new rite of Mass and the old rite, especially for those who attend the old rite for the first time, is that many of the prayers we are accustomed to hearing aloud, are said silently - particularly the Canon of the Mass. In The Spirit of the Liturgy (1999), the then Cardinal Ratzinger said:
It really is not true that reciting the whole Eucharistic Prayer our loud and without interruptions is a prerequisite for the paricipation of everyone in this central act of the Mass.
He had suggested, in 1978, that the priest might say the first words of the various prayers out loud so that each person could, in his silent prayer, bring his personal prayer into the communal prayer and the communal prayer into his personal prayer. (He notes that this suggestion annoyed many liturgists.) He went on to say,
Anyone who has experienced a church united in the silent praying of the Canon will know what a really filled silence is. It is at once a loud and penetrating cry to God and a Spirit-filled act of prayer. Here everyone does pray the Canon together, albeit in a bond with the special task of the priestly ministry.
Guéranger in his On the Holy Mass, reported a historical anecdote related to the silent Canon.
In the seventeenth century the Jansenist heretics tried to introduce the abuse of reciting the Canon of the Mass aloud. Deceived by their tricks, Cardinal de Bissy, one of the successors of Bossuet, countenanced the admission of “R.” in red type, into the Missal which he had composed for his Church, as the French Bishops of that day imagined they had a right to do. These “R.” in red would naturally convey the idea that the people were supposed to respond the Amen thus marked. Now they can only respond to Prayers that can be heard. Hence would necessarily follow, at last, the recitation of the Canon aloud, by the Priest, which was the very thing aimed at by these Jansenists. But happily, public attention was quickly drawn to this dangerous innovation, loud complaints were raised against it, and Cardinal de Bissy himself withdrew the unfortunate step he had taken.
Guéranger’s thought on this matter was not limited to the observance of liturgical law or the avoidance of being associated with something Jansenists desired. (Incidentally, it would be interesting to find out exactly why the Jansenists sought this innovation.) Commenting on the texts of the Mass, after the Sanctus, he wrote:
After these words, commences the Canon, that mysterious prayer in the midst of which heaven bows down to earth, and God descents unto us. The voice of the Priest is no longer heard: yea even at the Altar, all is silence. It was thus, says the Book of Wisdom, in the quiet of silence, and while the night was in the midst of her course, that the Almighty Word came down from his royal throne (Wisd. xviii. 14, 15). Let us await him in a like silence, and respectfully fix our eyes on what the Priest does in the holy place.
I have before suggested that liturgical reform in the present time would be more effectively accomplished by giving permission for traditional practices than by issuing condemnations of abuses. To be sure, the latter are important: even if they are widely ignored, orthodox priests at least have an authoritative source to appeal to. But if they were given permission to celebrate Mass saying the Canon silently, it would be an opportunity to introduce people in a striking way to the idea of genuine participation as something for which external activity is neither necessary nor sufficient.”

 

[Sirach2]

Old Salt,
While I appreciate your research, it is not appropriate to apply older theologies to our century, especially since it is not in accord with the mind of the Church and her lawful changes to the liturgy. Yes, I do appreciate very much the particular worship you describe for the TLM, and for those who lovingly embrace this liturgy, I am supportive 100%.

What I cannot understand is why do so many traditionalists, such as yourself who has a bias toward SSPX, ceaselessly strive to change the present worship of the OF with rhetoric, ancient writings, quotes from previous popes and theologians, etc. Why cannot you support this liturgy 100%, as others support yours? It really boggles my mind, as though you believe with the SSPX that our liturgy is defective unless it embodies all the disciplines of the TLM. Let me now share some thoughts, if you care to read them, from the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. Hopefully, we may understand one another better.

1. In order that the Christian people may more certainly derive an abundance of graces from the sacred liturgy, holy Mother Church desires to undertake with great care a general restoration of the liturgy itself. For the liturgy is made up of immutable elements divinely instituted, and of elements subject to change. These not only may but ought to be changed with the passage of time if they have suffered from the intrusion of anything out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy or have become unsuited to it.

[You see above that the disciplines are not the “immutable” aspects of liturgy, but are able to be changed as the Holy Spirit moves the Magisterium to implement them. The changes in the OF are lawfully implemented with formal approval by Motu Proprio, and celebrated by recent popes. Mind you, they have power to issue Motu Proprios to alter the present form, if in their sole authority they deemed the present “form” to be inappropriate. As you know, that has not happened.]

In this restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify; the Christian people, so far as possible, should be enabled to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.

1. It is to be stressed that whenever rites, according to their specific nature, make provision for communal celebration involving the presence and active participation of the faithful, this way of celebrating them is to be preferred, so far as possible, to a celebration that is individual and quasi-private. [In other words, it is communal, public worship of the gathered assembly, not a “me and God” personal prayer.]
2. The Church, therefore, earnestly desires that Christ’s faithful, when present at this mystery of faith, should not be there as strangers or silent spectators; on the contrary, through a good understanding of the rites and prayers they should take part in the sacred action conscious of what they are doing, with devotion and full collaboration. They should be instructed by God’s word and be nourished at the table of the Lord’s body; they should give thanks to God; by offering the Immaculate Victim, not only through the hands of the priest, but also with him, they should learn also to offer themselves; through Christ the Mediator, they should be drawn day by day into ever more perfect union with God and with each other, so that finally God may be all in all.

Paragraph 48 is probably a good synopsis in briefest language, demonstrating the Church’s direction she wishes to lead the faithful in our time. Remember, too, that this is the regular liturgy, not the extraordinary, celebrated by the majority of Catholics worldwide. In our love for the Lord, we heartily submit and follow the lead of Our Shepherds until such time as the Lord draws them to make changes. I have little doubt that more changes will come forth in future ages, just as they have changed many times over the centuries. It is completely insensitive and dogmatically improper for traditionalists to proselytize the spirituality of their liturgy on others who are called to worship in the Ordinary Form or other Catholic rites.

Had you simply shared your experience of the TLM, I would not be offended, but your post implies that we are following the abuses of Jansenists. This was utterly inappropriate, IMO.

 

[ProVobis]

Sirach2, the problem I have with your argument is that you seem to believe unless someone hears everything, supposedly in his own language, he cannot possibly understand the Mass according to the way you think the Church wants. Then how was it possible for me to understand the consecration fully at the Spanish Mass I attended last Saturday night and the only Spanish word I speak is “gracias”? I saw the priest look at and say something over the raised Host and that’s all I needed. The rest is distraction, IMO.

 

[Sirach2]

ProVobis:

The problem I have with your argument is that you seem to believe unless someone hears everything, supposedly in his own language, he cannot possibly understand the Mass according to the way you think the Church wants.

That’s an extremely broad paint brush you are using, PV. I never said one single word about language. Please read my post again. I posted only the Church’s teaching as promulgated in the Constitution I referenced, and it did not touch upon language whatsoever. Why are you so concerned about language? The essence of my post dealt with the silent canon and allegations of Jansenism, and had nothing to do with language.

 

[Old_Salt]

Sirach,
While it is a fact that the NO Missae, if used with the correct form, matter and intention is a valid Sacrifice, it is also a fact that it is a radical rewrite of the Rite of Mass that had nourished Catholics for over 1500 years.
There were minor changes to it [the Usus Antiquor] since Pope St Gregory the Great in the 5th century, but any change was always organic, keeping the Rite itself intact.
The Missal of 1969 radically altered the Rite itself in an drastically inorganic fashion, partly out of a sense of false ecumenism to placate those in false religions primarily Protestants. Even the normative Pauline Missal which is supposed to be offered in Latin and Ad Orientem orientation.
Please read the following:
catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/ordo.htm

 

[Big_Feet]

Sirach,
While it is a fact that the NO Missae, if used with the correct form, matter and intention is a valid Sacrifice, it is also a fact that it is a radical rewrite of the Rite of Mass that had nourished Catholics for over 1500 years.
There were minor changes to it [the Usus Antiquor] since Pope St Gregory the Great in the 5th century, but any change was always organic, keeping the Rite itself intact.
The Missal of 1969 radically altered the Rite itself in an drastically inorganic fashion, partly out of a sense of false ecumenism to placate those in false religions primarily Protestants. Even the normative Pauline Missal which is supposed to be offered in Latin and Ad Orientem orientation.
Please read the following:
catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/ordo.htm

Is the above website run by an approved organization from within the Holy Mother Church?
In a brief review, it appears very anti-Vatican II council.
just sayin’…

 

[YoungTradCath]

Is the above website run by an approved organization from within the Holy Mother Church?
In a brief review, it appears very anti-Vatican II council.
just sayin’…

I would not read that website. However, to judge it based on it having sponsorship from the Church or not is a bit base. I know of no apologetics site “approved” by the Church. After all, this one isn’t. (Or is it?)

 

[Old_Salt]

Is the above website run by an approved organization from within the Holy Mother Church?
In a brief review, it appears very anti-Vatican II council.
just sayin’…

A site does not need to be run by any organization to state what is factual.

The Second Vatican Council, while being a validly called oecumenical council of the Church, declared nothing new of an infallible nature.
It restated much that is always dogmatically true and beautiful.
However those with eyes to see, can see that there are at least some statements in the documents themselves that contradict what the Church always and everywhere taught before. and that includes the Constitution on the Liturgy [SC] among others.

No polemics, just my observation.

 

[Thomas_Francis]

The only “old” theology I saw Old Salt using was from the then Cardinal Ratzinger. It was in his book. Perhaps another quote from his book can straighten this out -

“In, 1978, to the annoyance of many liturgists, I said that in no sense does the whole Canon have to be said out loud. After much consideration, I should like to repeat and underline the point here in the hope that, twenty years later, the thesis will be better understood. . . . It is no accident that in Jerusalem, from a very early time, parts of the Canon were prayed in silence and that in the West the silent Canon–overlaid in part with meditative singing–became the norm. To dismiss all this as the result of misunderstandings is just too easy.” Spirit of the Liturgy, p. 215

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thread closed pending moderator review.