New Liturgy?

[Dave_in_Dallas]

OK… so this is probably a dumb question, and has been answered on here a million times already. Will there be a new Liturgy coming out? I’ve seen where some of the wording will change to be a better translation form the Latin. But is anything else changing, like the direction the priest faces, or the chanting responses, etc?

 

[Moscati]

You can see all the changes to the celebration of Mass here, side by side with what it done now: usccb.org/romanmissal/examples.shtml

It also says:
“Among other things, the revised edition of the Missale Romanum contains prayers for the observances of recently canonized saints, additional prefaces for the Eucharistic Prayers, additional Votive Masses and Masses and Prayers for Various Needs and Intentions, and some updated and revised rubrics (instructions) for the celebration of the Mass.”

I don’t think ad orientum/ad populum instructions are part of the changes.

 

[japhy]

Will there be a new Liturgy coming out? … But is anything else changing, like the direction the priest faces, or the chanting responses, etc?

Even with the current Sacramentary (Roman Missal), it is perfectly acceptable for the priest to face with the congregation (rather than towards them), for the responses (indeed, the whole Mass!) to be sung/chanted, for Latin to be used, etc.

The new English translation of the Roman Missal is simply a new English translation. It, of itself, does not have anything to do with posture, gestures, singing, etc.

That being said, this new translation is part of a “new liturgical movement” which also includes things like the ad orientem posture of the priest (facing with the people rather than towards the people), more use of Latin in the Mass, more singing and chanting (e.g. Gregorian chant) of the Mass, etc.

 

[Dave_in_Dallas]

That being said, this new translation is part of a “new liturgical movement” which also includes things like the ad orientem posture of the priest (facing with the people rather than towards the people), more use of Latin in the Mass, more singing and chanting (e.g. Gregorian chant) of the Mass, etc.

Again this may be a dumb question, but is the chanting only in the Latin mass?

 

[Rolltide]

Again this may be a dumb question, but is the chanting only in the Latin mass?

Now, you have to be careful in your terminology here. The official language of the current Mass (the “Ordinary Form”) IS Latin. The old form is more properly known now as the “Extraordinary Form”. Today’s Mass is supposed to be officially said in Latin, but is permitted to be said in vernacular languages on a regular basis. This is done so commonly that you almost never hear the Ordinary Form in Latin. Likewise, Gregorian chant is allowed a pride of place as the most favored musical form of the current Mass, but many other musical options are now allowed.

 

[japhy]

is the chanting only in the Latin mass?

At the risk of repeating what Rolltide said, here’s my response.

First, “the Latin mass” is a rather ambiguous phrase. There are currently two “forms” of the Roman Rite Mass.

One is the “Extraordinary Form”, which many call the “Traditional Latin Mass” or the “Tridentine Latin Mass” or the “1962 Missal”. I’ll abbreviate it as the E.F. The E.F. is the Mass as it was celebrated before and during Vatican II. It does not have any of the liturgical reforms of Vatican II. It is prayed completely in Latin (although the Scripture readings are sometimes repeated in the vernacular, and the homily is in the vernacular).

The other is the “Ordinary Form”, which many call the “vernacular Mass” (which is a misnomer!), the “Novus Ordo”, the “Mass of Paul VI”, the “New Mass”, etc. I’ll abbreviate it as the O.F. The O.F. is the post-Vatican II reformed liturgy of the Mass. While it can be prayed in the vernacular, its normal form is in Latin. While you will often find it prayed without any Latin or chant at all, Vatican II expected that Latin and Gregorian chant would remain in use. The new English translation is for this form of the Mass, the O.F.

So, to try to answer your question…

Gregorian chant and polyphony (a multi-voiced form of singing) are standard fare in the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.

In the Ordinary Form of the Mass, Gregorian chant and polyphony were quickly (and unjustly, in the opinion of many) replaced by vernacular hymns (often in styles completely separate from chant and polyphony). However, this doesn’t have to be the case! It is completely acceptable (and, in the mind of the Church, preferable) that Gregorian chant be used in the Mass. This can be done for singing things like the Kyrie, the Gloria, the Creed, the Sanctus (Holy, Holy, Holy), the Our Father, and the Agnus Dei (Lamb of God).

Here is saidactually about Latin and Gregorian chant in the Mass (even in the Mass as it was to be reformed):
36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

1. But since the use of **the mother tongue **, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters. …]
2. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and “the common prayer,” but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them. …]

1. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services. …]
   That last part, #116, is actually a rather poor translation. Allow me to show you what the Latin text says, and what a decent translation would be:
   Ecclesia cantum gregorianum agnoscit ut liturgiae romanae proprium: qui ideo in actionibus liturgicis, ceteris paribus, principem locum obtineat.

The Church acknowledges the Gregorian chant as proper to [that is, particular to, appropriate for use in] the Roman liturgy: which in liturgical services, other things being equal, holds the principal [that is, first] place.
In other words, Gregorian chant is a characteristic of the Roman liturgy. Different liturgies (Mozarabic, Milanese, Byzantine, etc.) have their own characteristic chant; Gregorian chant “belongs to” the Roman Rite. It should be preferred to all other forms of singing, although other forms of singing can be permitted in the Roman Rite.

But our present situation, where Gregorian chant and polyphony are virtually excluded from parishes, in favor piano-and-guitar-and-drum hymns, is a sad “development” which is not faithful to the Second Vatican Council. See, by excluding Gregorian chant, we’ve lost not only a major part of our Church’s traditional musical heritage, but we’re actually failing to sing actual parts of the Mass. I’ll describe this in my next post.**

 

[japhy]

But our present situation, where Gregorian chant and polyphony are virtually excluded from parishes, in favor piano-and-guitar-and-drum hymns, is a sad “development” which is not faithful to the Second Vatican Council. See, by excluding Gregorian chant, we’ve lost not only a major part of our Church’s traditional musical heritage, but we’re actually failing to sing actual parts of the Mass.

What does your parish usually sing at the beginning of Mass? A hymn from your hymnal, right?

And what does your parish usually sing during the Offertory (the “Preparation of the Gifts”) after the Prayer of the Faithful? Another hymn from your hymnal, right?

And what does your parish usually sing during Communion? Another hymn from your hymnal, right?

These hymns are, hopefully, thematically related to the Mass (to the Scripture readings, or to the feast being celebrated, or, in the case of the Communion song, to the reality of the Eucharist). However, these hymns are not the best things to be sung at these times. There are actual texts (Psalms, mostly) which the Church prefers to be sung/chanted at these times. They are called the Introit (“Entrance”), Offertorio (“Offertory”), and Communio (“Communion”) chants, and they are found in the “official” songbook of the Roman Rite called the “Roman Gradual”.

Even the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (the GIRM, the “guide” for the Ordinary Form of the Mass) mentions them. Here’s what the GIRM says about the singing at the beginning of the Mass; notice the order of the options given:
47. After the people have gathered, the Entrance chant begins as the priest enters with the deacon and ministers. The purpose of this chant is to open the celebration, foster the unity of those who have been gathered, introduce their thoughts to the mystery of the liturgical season or festivity, and accompany the procession of the priest and ministers.

1. The singing at this time is done either alternately by the choir and the people or in a similar way by the cantor and the people, or entirely by the people, or by the choir alone. In the dioceses of the United States of America there are four options for the Entrance Chant:
   1. 
      *][first] the antiphon from the Roman Missal or the Psalm from the Roman Gradual as set to music there or in another musical setting;
      *]the seasonal antiphon and Psalm of the Simple Gradual;
      *]a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms;
      *][last] a suitable liturgical song similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.
   Regarding the Offertory chant, the GIRM says:
   74. The procession bringing the gifts is accompanied by the Offertory chant, which continues at least until the gifts have been placed on the altar. The norms on the manner of singing are the same as for the Entrance chant (cf. above, no. 48). Singing may always accompany the rite at the offertory, even when there is no procession with the gifts.
   And for the Communion chant:
   86. While the priest is receiving the Sacrament, the Communion chant is begun. Its purpose is to express the communicants’ union in spirit by means of the unity of their voices, to show joy of heart, and to highlight more clearly the “communitarian” nature of the procession to receive Communion. The singing is continued for as long as the Sacrament is being administered to the faithful. If, however, there is to be a hymn after Communion, the Communion chant should be ended in a timely manner. Care should be taken that singers, too, can receive Communion with ease.
   1. In the dioceses of the United States of America there are four options for the Communion chant:
      1. 
         *][first] the antiphon from the Roman Missal or the Psalm from the Roman Gradual as set to music there or in another musical setting;
         *]the seasonal antiphon and Psalm of the Simple Gradual;
         *]a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms;
         *][last] a suitable liturgical song chosen in accordance with no. 86 above.
      This is sung either by the choir alone or by the choir or cantor with the people.
      Almost everywhere, though, you’ll find option #4 – some “suitable liturgical song”, which was chosen by the local musical committee – is chosen ahead of all other options, especially option #1 (which requires greater humility, because it’s choosing to sing the texts the Church has chosen, instead of the texts you have chosen).

 

[OraLabora]

Where I attend Mass, Gregorian Chant is used for the OF Mass daily (Benedictine abbey). I also sing in a small schola, we do Gregorian Chant exclusively, and we rotate around the parishes of a small city in Quebec once a month.

The Mass itself is in the vernacular in both cases (French). At the abbey, it is chanted entirely in French, even the readings, except for the Propers and Kyriale which are in Latin Gregorian Chant.

Gregorian Chant is not dead. A number of groups like ourselves are keeping it on life support. See Gregorian Institute of Canada

 

[japhy]

Final comment for now:

I would hope that this new English translation stirs up a movement towards a more reverent and traditional celebration of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, a style of celebration which gives a place to Latin and Gregorian chant, among other things.

 

[japhy]

Gregorian Chant is not dead. A number of groups like ourselves are keeping it on life support. See Gregorian Institute of Canada

Thank you, and may God bless you, for your efforts!

Slight ironic note… you mentioned the Gregorian Institute of Canada. There once was a Gregorian Institute of America. It still exists, under a slightly different name, although it has mostly abandoned its Gregorian roots. It prints hymnals with the names “Gather”, “Worship”, and “RitualSong”. Sound familiar? The company now goes by the name GIA.

 

[OraLabora]

Thank you, and may God bless you, for your efforts!

Slight ironic note… you mentioned the Gregorian Institute of Canada. There once was a Gregorian Institute of America. It still exists, under a slightly different name, although it has mostly abandoned its Gregorian roots. It prints hymnals with the names “Gather”, “Worship”, and “RitualSong”. Sound familiar? The company now goes by the name GIA.

I sure hope it never happens to us! But we do cheat a bit and get into other chant forms such as Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Old Sarum, and other medieval chant. But our focus remains Gregorian.

We sort of fall into two categories, either as academicians studying chant with a more theoretical slant, and performers. I fall into the later category but both do cross-feed off each other

The choir I sing in is one of the institutional members of the Institute, and I am one of the directors of both the institute and our choir.

 

[malphono]

I sure hope it never happens to us! But we do cheat a bit and get into other chant forms such as Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Old Sarum, and other medieval chant. But our focus remains Gregorian.

This is a bit off-topic, but the Te Deum sung more ambrosiano is just incredible! IMHO, it beats the more gregoriano (aka more romano) by a mile.

 

[CDNowak]

This is a bit off-topic, but the Te Deum sung more ambrosiano is just incredible! IMHO, it beats the more gregoriano (aka more romano) by a mile.

Sort of fitting for the ‘Ambrosian Hymn’

 

[benedictgal]

OK… so this is probably a dumb question, and has been answered on here a million times already. Will there be a new Liturgy coming out? I’ve seen where some of the wording will change to be a better translation form the Latin. But is anything else changing, like the direction the priest faces, or the chanting responses, etc?

Ad orientum was never negated. Please note what Pope Benedict XVI wrote in his book, The Spirit of the Liturgy:

Turn to the East is essential

On the other hand, a common turning to the East during the Eucharistic Prayer remains essential. This is not a case of accidentals, but of essentials. Looking at the priest has no importance. What matters is looking together at the Lord. It is not now a question of dialogue, but of common worship, of setting off towards the One who is to come. What corresponds with the reality of what is happening is not the closed circle, but the common movement forward expressed in a common direction for prayer…

The image of God in man

[An] objection is that we do not need to look toward the East, towards the crucifix, that, when priest and faithful look at one another, they are looking at the image of God in man, and so facing one another is the right direction for prayer. I find it hard to believe that the famous reviewer thought this was a serious argument. For we do not see the image of God in man in such a simplistic way. The “image of God” in man is not, of course, something that we can photograph or see with a merely photographic kind of perception. We can indeed see it, but only with the new seeing of faith. We can see it, just as we can see the goodness in a man, his honesty, interior truth, humility, love – everything, in fact, that gives him a certain likeness to God. But if we are to do this, we must learn a new kind of seeing, and that is what the Eucharist is for…

The sign of the Son of Man

A more important objection is of the practical order. Are we really going to re-order everything all over again? Nothing is more harmful to the Liturgy than constant changes, even if it seems to be for the sake of genuine renewal.

I see a solution to this in a suggestion I noted at the beginning in connection with the insights of Erik Peterson. Facing toward the East, as we heard, was linked with the “sign of the Son of Man”, with the Cross, which announces Our Lord’s Second Coming. That is why, very early on, the East was linked with the sign of the cross. Where a direct common turning toward the East is not possible, the cross can serve as the interior “East” of faith. It should stand in the middle of the altar and be the common point of focus for both priest and praying community.

In this way we obey the ancient call to prayer: Conversi ad Dominum, “Turn to the Lord!” In this way we look together at the One whose Death tore the veil of the Temple – the One who stands before the Father for us and encloses us in His arms in order to make us the new and living Temple.

Moving the altar cross to the side to give an uninterrupted view of the priest is something I regard as one of the truly absurd phenomena of recent decades. Is the cross disruptive during Mass? Is the priest more important than Our Lord?

This mistake should be corrected as quickly as possible; it can be done without further rebuilding. The Lord is the point of reference. He is the rising sun of history. That is why there can be a cross of the Passion, which represents the Suffering Lord who for us let His side be pierced, from which flowed blood and water (Eucharist and Baptism), as well as a cross of triumph, which expresses the idea of Our Lord’s Second Coming and guides our eyes towards it. For it is always the One Lord: Christ yesterday, today, and for ever (Heb. 13. 8).

I hope this helps.

 

[malphono]

Ad orientum was never negated. Please note what Pope Benedict XVI wrote in his book, The Spirit of the Liturgy:

This is very true. Even the editio typica OF missal presumes ad orientem celebration. But sadly, despite that and despite the writing and practice of PP Benedict XVI (publicly on occasion), ad orientem is still a rarity. On the plus side, it’s use is increasing, albeit slowly.

I suppose I sound like a broken record, but IMO ad orientem is, in and of itself, the single most important liturgical issue. It’s universal restoration will go a long way toward the making the “reform of the reform” in the OF (and in those parts of the Orient in the thrall of the dreaded “spirit of Vatican II”) a reality. Yes, of course, it’s not a cure-all: there are a variety of other things, but one step at a time. If we can conquer a hill, we can conquer a mountain.

 

[malphono]

Sort of fitting for the ‘Ambrosian Hymn’

Yes, I guess so.

 

[EasterJoy]

Again this may be a dumb question, but is the chanting only in the Latin mass?

No. I grew up hearing the Collect, Eucharistic prayer, and so on chanted for major Masses, in English, and it wasn’t because our pastor was a closet opera singer.

This is another nice change I’m seeing in the new priests and transitional deacons: more of them chant their parts, during Triduum and the Octaves of Christmas and Easter especially. Recently, I have even heard the Gospel chanted.

 

[EasterJoy]

Ad orientum was never negated. Please note what Pope Benedict XVI wrote in his book, The Spirit of the Liturgy…

Excepting that people are accustomed to seeing the face of a person they are listening to, the only reason I can see arguing in favor * ad populum* is practical. In some places (rarer and rarer, now) the lack of a sound system makes it impossible, particularly for the hard of hearing, to hear most priests unless the priest is facing the person trying to listen. This, even though the prayers being offered are currently meant to be audible to all. When the prayers are not audible, people are even more tempted to let their minds wander off to other things. That would have the practical effect that a lot of people would not be meditating on what is being said as it was being said, which would be unfortunate, to say the least. We are a people with a lot of useless words streaming through our minds these days. It seems clear to me that this problem is much more prevalent than it could possibly have been in the days before broadcast communications were invented. It can never have been worse than it is now.

Now that we have amplification and clip-on microphones, though, it is no harder to hear a priest facing away from you than to hear him facing towards you, which removes that disadvantage of an ad orientum orientation in the vast majority of cases.

 

[pro_multis]

When the prayers are not audible, people are even more tempted to let their minds wander off to other things. That would have the practical effect that a lot of people would not be meditating on what is being said as it was being said, which would be unfortunate, to say the least.

Now that we have amplification and clip-on microphones, though, it is no harder to hear a priest facing away from you than to hear him facing towards you, which removes that disadvantage of an ad orientum orientation in the vast majority of cases.

Hmmm…the cannon of the mass is not said audibly, yet the yet nearly all of the people intenesly follow along in their missals. Very different from the vacuous stares that the priest encounters during the novus ordo liturgy.

 

[ProVobis]

The new English translation of the Roman Missal is simply a new English translation. It, of itself, does not have anything to do with posture, gestures, singing, etc.

I don’t know if I would call it “new.” I looked at the translation and the Gloria, Creed, and common responses are very close to the English that is printed in my Fr Lasance’s Latin-English Missal of 1945.