Just how "traditional" can the N.O. be?

[Iohannes]

Andreas Hofer:

The prayers at the foot of the altar and the last Gospel would not technically be abuse because, by their nature, they take place before and after the N.O. and thus would fall outside of the Mass itself. Essentially, there would be prayers at the foot of the altar, then an N.O. Mass, then a last Gospel.

Indeed, the Mass does not start until the Introit.
It would be possible to attach the prayers at the foot of the altar and last Gospel.

More things to note.
Prayers at the Foot of the Altar started as a preparation prayer for the Mass and is still is. The Last Gospel was put in to help combat the Cathar Heresy as well as to summerize salvation History.

 

[Vincent]

Iohannes:

The Silent Canon in the Novus Ordo is an abuse, by why not continue doing it until Rome caves in and make it ok just like they caved in for Communion–in-the hand, and altar girls?

“The ends do not justify the means” kind of thing?

 

[Iohannes]

“The ends do not justify the means” kind of thing?

I am only kidding.

But understand, many things that were once an abuse are now tolerated because Rome instead of punishing the abusers, they made their actions legal so that what they did was no longer an abuse. In my opinion, that is a wrong way to go about things.

 

[Crusader]

Andreas Hofer:

The prayers at the foot of the altar and the last Gospel would not technically be abuse because, by their nature, they take place before and after the N.O. and thus would fall outside of the Mass itself. Essentially, there would be prayers at the foot of the altar, then an N.O. Mass, then a last Gospel.

Wrong. The prayers at the foot of the sanctuary are part of the Tridentine Mass. If you tried to work that into the Novus Ordo Mass that would be a liturgical abuse.

If you did it before either Mass began it would just be…odd.

 

[Crusader]

Iohannes:

I am only kidding.

But understand, many things that were once an abuse are now tolerated because Rome instead of punishing the abusers, they made their actions legal so that what they did was no longer an abuse. In my opinion, that is a wrong way to go about things.

Like what?

And who are we to question the Holy See?

 

[Crusader]

ybeayf:

Again, all I see it saying is that the faithful must listen in silence and take part in the acclamations. I see nothing that says the prayer must be recited aloud (except for the acclamations, of course), or that the prayer may not be covered with music.

Have you read the notes in the latest Sacramentary?

 

[drforjc]

In a past issue of The Catholic Answer , while he was still the editor, Fr. Peter Stravinskas examined the rubrics surrounding the eucharistic prayer and concluded that it MAY be said sotto voce but he also stated he could see no reason to do so. That may have been under the old GIRM. I’d like to see a comparison between that and the 2000 GIRM and see if that’s been changed.

 

[Vincent]

Interestingly, the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar were optional in the 1965 Roman Missal. The Last Gospel, on the other hand, was omitted.

 

[drforjc]

Addendum to my last post–
perhaps Fr. Stravinskas was looking directly at the Sacramentary, not the GIRM.

 

[CatholicNerd]

Just a side note about the old fiddlebacks… a few months ago when the movie “Bulletproof Monk” was released, I was in the other room and heard the TV. I rushed into the TV room expecting to find a Dominican priest in an old fiddleback, but alas, it was just another martial arts movie… :crying:

 

[Iohannes]

Crusader:

Like what?

And who are we to question the Holy See?

Altar girls and Communion in the hand.

Those are in the realm we may question. We are allowed to question some discipline, it does not make me or anyone else disobident just to question.

Does questioning why the Pope is holding Assisi meetings and giving the Red had to Cardinal Kasper make me a disobident person?

 

[ybeayf]

Have you read the notes in the latest Sacramentary?

I have not, unfortunately, which is why I was asking for cites where the silent canon is prohibited. What does the Sacramentary say about it?

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Crusader:

Wrong. The prayers at the foot of the sanctuary are part of the Tridentine Mass. If you tried to work that into the Novus Ordo Mass that would be a liturgical abuse.

If you did it before either Mass began it would just be…odd.

Just because they were part of the Tridentine Mass does not mean that saying them in close proximity to an N.O. Mass is an abuse. Abuses can only technically occur within the Mass. Since, as was pointed out above, the Mass does not begin until the introit, anything that comes before that is not an abuse of the N.O. It may be improper, of course, like having a death metal performance, but it’s not an abuse of the Mass itself. No one has ever said that the congregation praying the rosary directly before Mass must be an abuse because it is not called for in the rubrics of the Mass and, while it’s not exactly the same case, that would be a rough parallel to prayers at the foot of the altar.

 

[Crusader]

Iohannes:

Altar girls and Communion in the hand.

Those are in the realm we may question. We are allowed to question some discipline, it does not make me or anyone else disobident just to question.

Does questioning why the Pope is holding Assisi meetings and giving the Red had to Cardinal Kasper make me a disobident person?

Communion in the hand was typical during the time of the Apostles and that’s good enough for me.

I have no idea about the history of altar girls. Their application does seem self-defeating to the topic of priestly vocations however.

 

[Crusader]

Andreas Hofer:

Just because they were part of the Tridentine Mass does not mean that saying them in close proximity to an N.O. Mass is an abuse. Abuses can only technically occur within the Mass. Since, as was pointed out above, the Mass does not begin until the introit, anything that comes before that is not an abuse of the N.O. It may be improper, of course, like having a death metal performance, but it’s not an abuse of the Mass itself. No one has ever said that the congregation praying the rosary directly before Mass must be an abuse because it is not called for in the rubrics of the Mass and, while it’s not exactly the same case, that would be a rough parallel to prayers at the foot of the altar.

The Novus Ordo Mass begins with the processional rite.

Yeah, I guess the priest and altar boys could come out and pray, then retreat to the sacristy and then start the processional rite but that wasn’t what was suggested.

It would be an unlawful addition to the Mass and therefore an abuse.

 

[Iohannes]

Crusader:

Communion in the hand was typical during the time of the Apostles and that’s good enough for me.

I have no idea about the history of altar girls. Their application does seem self-defeating to the topic of priestly vocations however.

What historical document can justify that?

Communion-in-tongue and in the hand were common in those days, but they were more reverent and anyone who praticed communion-in-the hand was allowed to do so, but the tone was negative, warning the faithful to be very careful and reverent to the Sacred Host.

However, they later banned Communion-in-the-hand. And the Dutched bishop starting distributing Communion in the hand as an abuse, but the pope lifted the ban and it no longer became an abuse. If you were around at that time, would you tolerate the Disobeidence of the dutch Bishops illicitly distributing Communion-in-the Hand?

 

[Iohannes]

Crusader:

The Novus Ordo Mass begins with the processional rite.

Yeah, I guess the priest and altar boys could come out and pray, then retreat to the sacristy and then start the processional rite but that wasn’t what was suggested.

It would be an unlawful addition to the Mass and therefore an abuse.

For the Last time, the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar is not a part of the Mass, so they do not have to retreat in the sacristy and come back out.

 

[pnewton]

Iohannes:

What historical document can justify that?

Communion-in-tongue and in the hand were common in those days, but they were more reverent and anyone who praticed communion-in-the hand was allowed to do so, but the tone was negative, warning the faithful to be very careful and reverent to the Sacred Host.

In what document can you back up communion on the tongue during apostolic times? This is the first I ever heard anyone suggest that this idea.

 

[Crusader]

Iohannes:

For the Last time, the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar is not a part of the Mass, so they do not have to retreat in the sacristy and come back out.

If the celebrant and others processed into the church (which begins the processional rite) and then did this prayer it would be an illegal (and odd) addition to the Novus Ordo Mass.

They would have to take measures to make it totally discrete from the Mass itself – like retreating to the sacristy in between.

 

[Crusader]

Iohannes:

What historical document can justify that?

Communion-in-tongue and in the hand were common in those days, but they were more reverent and anyone who praticed communion-in-the hand was allowed to do so, but the tone was negative, warning the faithful to be very careful and reverent to the Sacred Host.

However, they later banned Communion-in-the-hand. And the Dutched bishop starting distributing Communion in the hand as an abuse, but the pope lifted the ban and it no longer became an abuse. If you were around at that time, would you tolerate the Disobeidence of the dutch Bishops illicitly distributing Communion-in-the Hand?

“Communion-in-tongue” was not common back then… I really don’t care if it was later banned. All I know is that it is now allowed in the Church in the USA and that’s all I care about.