Question on Latin Novus Ordo Mass

[ies0716]

Greetings,

My wife and I attend a very conservative parish in the Archdiocese of Minneapolis and St. Paul. This parish has a Latin mass every Sunday at 10 AM that alternates every other week between the EF (Tridentine) and the OF (Novus Ordo). At both types of masses. they have choir that sings classical Mass parts from Bach, Haydn, and other classical composers. During the EF mass, it is the standard for the choir to continue the Sanctus through the first part of the Eucharistic Prayer, stopping shortly before the consecration. However, this is also done during the Novus Ordo mass. I’ve read the Redemptonis Sacramentum instruction, and the following parts apply to the Novus Ordo:

[53.] While the Priest proclaims the Eucharistic Prayer “there should be no other prayers or singing, and the organ or other musical instruments should be silent”, except for the people’s acclamations that have been duly approved, as described below.

[54.] The people, however, are always involved actively and never merely passively: for they “silently join themselves with the Priest in faith, as well as in their interventions during the course of the Eucharistic Prayer as prescribed, namely in the responses in the Preface dialogue, the Sanctus, the acclamation after the consecration and the “Amen” after the final doxology, and in other acclamations approved by the Conference of Bishops with the recognitio of the Holy See”.

So this leads to my question. Is my parish’s practice legitimate or an abuse? Music is not played during the consecration itself, only during the initial parts of the Roman Canon. Since this instruction says that instruments must be silent “except during the people’s acclamations” does this allow for a choir-sung acclimation to carry over through the beginning of the Eucharistic prayer?

Thanks,

Isaac

 

[AJV]

Greetings,

My wife and I attend a very conservative parish in the Archdiocese of Minneapolis and St. Paul. This parish has a Latin mass every Sunday at 10 AM that alternates every other week between the EF (Tridentine) and the OF (Novus Ordo). At both types of masses. they have choir that sings classical Mass parts from Bach, Haydn, and other classical composers. During the EF mass, it is the standard for the choir to continue the Sanctus through the first part of the Eucharistic Prayer, stopping shortly before the consecration. However, this is also done during the Novus Ordo mass. I’ve read the Redemptonis Sacramentum instruction, and the following parts apply to the Novus Ordo:

[53.] While the Priest proclaims the Eucharistic Prayer “there should be no other prayers or singing, and the organ or other musical instruments should be silent”, except for the people’s acclamations that have been duly approved, as described below.

[54.] The people, however, are always involved actively and never merely passively: for they “silently join themselves with the Priest in faith, as well as in their interventions during the course of the Eucharistic Prayer as prescribed, namely in the responses in the Preface dialogue, the Sanctus, the acclamation after the consecration and the “Amen” after the final doxology, and in other acclamations approved by the Conference of Bishops with the recognitio of the Holy See”.

So this leads to my question. Is my parish’s practice legitimate or an abuse? Music is not played during the consecration itself, only during the initial parts of the Roman Canon. Since this instruction says that instruments must be silent “except during the people’s acclamations” does this allow for a choir-sung acclimation to carry over through the beginning of the Eucharistic prayer?

Thanks,

Isaac

It is not legitimate.

Is this St. Agnes? I read somehwehre (wdtprs maybe?) once that they have a strange interpretation of the GIRM that they feel allows this (or maybe it referred to reciting something in the lower voice - I shall have to dig that up). It seemed to stretch the GIRM, IIRC - and as you’ve quoted, the rubrics are quite clear that it is not permitted.

 

[ies0716]

It is not legitimate.

Is this St. Agnes? I read somehwehre (wdtprs maybe?) once that they have a strange interpretation of the GIRM that they feel allows this (or maybe it referred to reciting something in the lower voice - I shall have to dig that up). It seemed to stretch the GIRM, IIRC - and as you’ve quoted, the rubrics are quite clear that it is not permitted.

Do you have sources for this? While according to the GIRM this would not be permitted, Redemptonis Sacramentum appears to make an exception for the responses (Sanctus, etc) themselves. I should also note that during the consecration there is no music playing and the priest is speaking loudly enough to be heard throughout the church.

And yes, it is St. Agnes. We started going there a few months ago after being fed up with the Liturgical Abuses at our former parish (laypeople preaching during Mass, inappropriate choices for songs, too many Extraordinary Ministers, etc). Given that the pastor there is a former rector of the St. Paul seminary and very close with both the current and former Archbishop, I would be shocked if he was deliberately doing something that was against the rules.

 

[japhy]

During the EF mass, it is the standard for the choir to continue the Sanctus through the first part of the Eucharistic Prayer, stopping shortly before the consecration. However, this is also done during the Novus Ordo mass. …

Is my parish’s practice legitimate or an abuse?

It is not legitimate.

Do you have sources for this? While according to the GIRM this would not be permitted, Redemptonis Sacramentum appears to make an exception for the responses (Sanctus, etc) themselves.

Redemptionis Sacramentum is essentially quoting the GIRM. Here are prescriptions from the GIRM which argue against the singing of the Sanctus into the continuation of the priest’s words of the Eucharistic Prayer.

“[T]he whole congregation, joining with the heavenly powers, sings the Sanctus. This acclamation, which is part of the Eucharistic Prayer itself, is sung or said by all the people with the priest.” (GIRM 79b)

“Next, the priest, with hands extended, continues the Preface. At its conclusion, he joins his hands, and together with everyone present, sings or says aloud the Sanctus (cf. above, no. 79b).” (GIRM 148)

“The priest continues the Eucharistic Prayer in accordance with the rubrics that are set forth in each of the Prayers.” (GIRM 149) – that is, he continues it after the Sanctus.

“After the Sanctus, the priest concelebrants continue the Eucharistic Prayer…” (GIRM 217)

 

[ies0716]

Redemptionis Sacramentum is essentially quoting the GIRM. Here are prescriptions from the GIRM which argue against the singing of the Sanctus into the continuation of the priest’s words of the Eucharistic Prayer.

“[T]he whole congregation, joining with the heavenly powers, sings the Sanctus. This acclamation, which is part of the Eucharistic Prayer itself, is sung or said by all the people with the priest.” (GIRM 79b)

“Next, the priest, with hands extended, continues the Preface. At its conclusion, he joins his hands, and together with everyone present, sings or says aloud the Sanctus (cf. above, no. 79b).” (GIRM 148)

“The priest continues the Eucharistic Prayer in accordance with the rubrics that are set forth in each of the Prayers.” (GIRM 149) – that is, he continues it after the Sanctus.

“After the Sanctus, the priest concelebrants continue the Eucharistic Prayer…” (GIRM 217)

Yeah, I’ve read the GIRM and noticed the apparent contradiction. This is why I posed the question. If I was at any other parish, I would just assume that the priest had gone rogue and was making his own changes to the Order of Mass. St. Agnes has always been different, however. This particular way of doing things at St. Agnes was originated with Monsignor Schuler, who was known for being extremely scrupulous about following instructions from Rome (while also striving to maintain the Church’s organic liturgical tradition as much as possible). The current pastor and associates are also well-known throughout the Archdiocese for faithfulness and orthodoxy. I find it difficult to imagine that they would blatantly ignore the rules and do their own thing.

The above quotes from Redemptionis Sacramentum (which is a clarification of the GIRM) indicate that exceptions may be made for the Sanctus and the Mysterium Fidei. My impression is there are some inherent contradictions between the current GIRM and Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium, which may have lead Monsignor Schuler to get some kind of exception to the GIRM for St. Agnes. I was hoping that someone on these forums would be aware of such a thing, or perhaps belong to another parish that does something similar.

 

[japhy]

This particular way of doing things at St. Agnes was originated with Monsignor Schuler, who was known for being extremely scrupulous about following instructions from Rome (while also striving to maintain the Church’s organic liturgical tradition as much as possible). The current pastor and associates are also well-known throughout the Archdiocese for faithfulness and orthodoxy. I find it difficult to imagine that they would blatantly ignore the rules and do their own thing.

Perhaps they just haven’t looked closely enough. They’re trying to retain a liturgical practice which was not retained in the Ordinary Form.

The above quotes from Redemptionis Sacramentum (which is a clarification of the GIRM) indicate that exceptions may be made for the Sanctus and the Mysterium Fidei.

Those quotes in context point out that the “Eucharistic Prayer” denotes everything from “The Lord be with you” (the dialogue before the preface), through the Preface, through the Canon (or whatever other E.P. is used), through to the concluding doxology. There is to be no music at all during this time, nor other things being prayed, except for the acclamations that “interrupt” the prayer which is exclusively the priest’s. Those things do not take place while the priest is still praying the presidential words.

Tell me, does this parish also let the priest continue praying the second half of the Canon while the people are singing the “Memorial Acclamation”?

This seems to me to be clearly against the intention of the Ordinary Form Missal.

My impression is there are some inherent contradictions between the current GIRM and Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium, which may have lead Monsignor Schuler to get some kind of exception to the GIRM for St. Agnes.

The Ordinary Form is what it is, and it is not for priests to change the liturgy as they see fit. Whatever flaws the O.F. has, however poorly the Consilium actually implemented the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, we are still required by obedience to celebrate the Mass as the Church has legislated it to be celebrated.

If there was an exception, they should have documentation. I doubt they do.

 

[ies0716]

Perhaps they just haven’t looked closely enough. They’re trying to retain a liturgical practice which was not retained in the Ordinary Form.

Those quotes in context point out that the “Eucharistic Prayer” denotes everything from “The Lord be with you” (the dialogue before the preface), through the Preface, through the Canon (or whatever other E.P. is used), through to the concluding doxology. There is to be no music at all during this time, nor other things being prayed, except for the acclamations that “interrupt” the prayer which is exclusively the priest’s. Those things do not take place while the priest is still praying the presidential words.

Tell me, does this parish also let the priest continue praying the second half of the Canon while the people are singing the “Memorial Acclamation”?

This seems to me to be clearly against the intention of the Ordinary Form Missal.

The Ordinary Form is what it is, and it is not for priests to change the liturgy as they see fit. Whatever flaws the O.F. has, however poorly the Consilium actually implemented the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, we are still required by obedience to celebrate the Mass as the Church has legislated it to be celebrated.

If there was an exception, they should have documentation. I doubt they do.

Hmm… if that’s the case then there is something seriously deficient with either the GIRM or your interpretation of it. They’ve basically prescribed rubrics that forbid 99% of Latin music that has been part of the traditions of the Church for centuries. The GIRM also goes in the face of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, which required “pride of place” for Latin and Gregorian Chant. To follow the rubrics exactly would practically require violation of the Constitution.

I would also appreciate if you did not condemn the fine priests of my parish as ignorant or careless without any evidence. I posted this question on the forum to seek explanation, not condemnation from someone who copies and pastes sections of the GIRM (which I am perfectly capable of reading myself) and then provides his own personal interpretations of them. I have also read the full text of the Constitution on Divine Liturgy as well as the GIRM and there are many parts of the GIRM that are flat out contradicted by the earlier (and more authoritative) Constitution.

At musicasacra.com a Canon Lawyer comments on the validity of a polyphonic Sanctus, which according to the strict rubrics of the GIRM would technically be forbidden. Since this would violate prior laws laid down for the liturgy, the Canon Lawyer interprets it in a way that harmonizes it with previous law. Since a polyphonic Sanctus implies a quiet reading of at least part of the Roman Canon, this would seem to support the practice at St. Agnes.

musicasacra.com/pdf/choralsanctus.pdf

 

[japhy]

[The GIRM has] basically prescribed rubrics that forbid 99% of Latin music that has been part of the traditions of the Church for centuries. The GIRM also goes in the face of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, which required “pride of place” for Latin and Gregorian Chant. To follow the rubrics exactly would practically require violation of the Constitution.

The GIRM does not prevent Gregorian chant and polyphony from being used in the Mass. I agree with you (if I assess your position rightly) that Sacrosanctum Concilium was not followed very well in the liturgical reform that produced the Ordinary Form of the Mass, and I lament that.

I would also appreciate if you did not condemn the fine priests of my parish as ignorant or careless without any evidence.

I apologize.

I posted this question on the forum to seek explanation…

You would probably get the results you seek by writing to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Or perhaps you could write to Fr. John Zuhlsdorf at WDTPRS.com.

… not condemnation from someone who copies and pastes sections of the GIRM (which I am perfectly capable of reading myself) and then provides his own personal interpretations of them. I have also read the full text of the Constitution on Divine Liturgy as well as the GIRM and there are many parts of the GIRM that are flat out contradicted by the earlier (and more authoritative) Constitution.

I pasted the quotes out of courtesy and convenience. I was also not aware you had read all these documents. And there’s always the possibility that you read something pertinent to this matter without noticing it.

Does anything in Sacrosanctum Concilium override the liturgical rubrics of the GIRM which state that the priest sings the Sanctus with the congregation?

Anyway, It is not up to us as individuals to choose to deviate from the GIRM based on our own interpretation of Sacrosanctum Concilium. Even S.C. itself says that priests are not to change the liturgy on their own authority. (So perhaps Msgr. Schuler did get permission – or clarification – from someone with the authority to grant it.)

At musicasacra.com a Canon Lawyer comments on the validity of a polyphonic Sanctus, which according to the strict rubrics of the GIRM would technically be forbidden. Since this would violate prior laws laid down for the liturgy, the Canon Lawyer interprets it in a way that harmonizes it with previous law. Since a polyphonic Sanctus implies a quiet reading of at least part of the Roman Canon, this would seem to support the practice at St. Agnes.

I’m not a canon lawyer, so I’m not qualified to comment on his opinion. I’m curious, though, just what is liturgical law for the Ordinary Form, since the GIRM (being an “Instruction”) “does not change the law, it merely explains it” (quoting the canon lawyer). What liturgical law has changed?

 

[ies0716]

The GIRM does not prevent Gregorian chant and polyphony from being used in the Mass. I agree with you (if I assess your position rightly) that Sacrosanctum Concilium was not followed very well in the liturgical reform that produced the Ordinary Form of the Mass, and I lament that.

Yes, that is my position. Reading Sacrosanctum Concilium and then reading the GIRM almost makes you wonder if the two documents have anything to do with one another.

I apologize.

I appreciate your apology. I get a little touchy when I perceive priests (especially ones I know and respect) as being attacked.

You would probably get the results you seek by writing to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Or perhaps you could write to Fr. John Zuhlsdorf at WDTPRS.com.

I think writing Fr. Z is probably a good idea. I read his blog daily and he seems to be the expert on all things related to the Latin Mass. He’s actually quite familiar with St. Agnes (he’s mentioned it multiple times on his blog) and was in seminary with Fr. Altier, the previous associate pastor there. I think I might also ask the current pastor (Fr. John Ubel) for some clarification as there may be some agreement that has been worked out that I’m not aware of. I know that Monsignor Schuler did a lot of back-and-forth with the Archdiocese after Novus Ordo came out to get St. Agnes’s Mass to where it is now, so chances are there’s some history involved.

I pasted the quotes out of courtesy and convenience. I was also not aware you had read all these documents. And there’s always the possibility that you read something pertinent to this matter without noticing it.

I misunderstood your motives. I think I’ve gotten used to much of the discourse on the Internet being rude and confrontational, so I tend to assume the worst.

Does anything in Sacrosanctum Concilium override the liturgical rubrics of the GIRM which state that the priest sings the Sanctus with the congregation?

It’s hard to say. Sancrosanctum Concilium does lay out some clear principles that, by virtually any reading, the GIRM violates. I also remember hearing once that the USCCB tinkered with the English translation of the GIRM so that some of the rubrics may not fully reflect what the Vatican intended. Don’t quote me on that though.

Anyway, It is not up to us as individuals to choose to deviate from the GIRM based on our own interpretation of Sacrosanctum Concilium. Even S.C. itself says that priests are not to change the liturgy on their own authority. (So perhaps Msgr. Schuler did get permission – or clarification – from someone with the authority to grant it.)

Agreed. Tolkien wrote once that “those who would defend authority against rebellion must not themselves rebel.” It is my sincere hope that Msgr. Schuler did get permission/clarification from a proper authority at some point. Many Catholics in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis come to St. Agnes precisely to escape abuses and shaky theology at other parishes. It would be a tragedy, then, if St. Agnes was guilty of abuses as well.

I’m not a canon lawyer, so I’m not qualified to comment on his opinion. I’m curious, though, just what is liturgical law for the Ordinary Form, since the GIRM (being an “Instruction”) “does not change the law, it merely explains it” (quoting the canon lawyer). What liturgical law has changed?

That’s a good question. The massive amount of information available on these topics is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it’s good for laypeople to know what “correct” is. On the other hand, many documents contain fuzzy and/or overly technical language as well as very poor translations from the original Latin, so if 10 different people read the same document they come up with 10 different interpretations.

I would guess that the Code of Canon Law contains articles on the Liturgy that may pertain here. If I ever have an excess of free time, I may sit down and pore through it.

Peace in Christ,

Isaac

 

[Chatter163]

It is nice to hear that St. Agnes now offers the EF regularly. I can remember when they wouldn’t touch it.

 

[AJV]

Hmm… if that’s the case then there is something seriously deficient with either the GIRM or your interpretation of it. They’ve basically prescribed rubrics that forbid 99% of Latin music that has been part of the traditions of the Church for centuries. The GIRM also goes in the face of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, which required “pride of place” for Latin and Gregorian Chant. To follow the rubrics exactly would practically require violation of the Constitution.

But subsequent legislative documents have enjoined the current practice and they have ore binding authority, since it some cases the prescriptions of Sacrosanctum Concilium have been superceded.

I would also appreciate if you did not condemn the fine priests of my parish as ignorant or careless without any evidence.

They may not be ignorant or careless, but they certainly are stretching the rubrics, in order ot align themselves with the previous method.

On 3 occasions,from the 70’s to the 90’s, in editions of the publication Notitiae, the CDW has replied and interpreted the phrase “omnes reverentia et silentio eam auscultent” as forbidding accompaniment, and overlaying by other texts (like meditations or expansions), instrumental music, accompaniment or musical settings, etc. It seems that the clear meaning of the text, which is certainly validated by the practice of the Church, and the interpretation of the appropriate Congregation, would forbid any overlaying.

I posted this question on the forum to seek explanation, not condemnation from someone who copies and pastes sections of the GIRM (which I am perfectly capable of reading myself) and then provides his own personal interpretations of them. I have also read the full text of the Constitution on Divine Liturgy as well as the GIRM and there are many parts of the GIRM that are flat out contradicted by the earlier (and more authoritative) Constitution.

At musicasacra.com a Canon Lawyer comments on the validity of a polyphonic Sanctus, which according to the strict rubrics of the GIRM would technically be forbidden. Since this would violate prior laws laid down for the liturgy, the Canon Lawyer interprets it in a way that harmonizes it with previous law. Since a polyphonic Sanctus implies a quiet reading of at least part of the Roman Canon, this would seem to support the practice at St. Agnes.

musicasacra.com/pdf/choralsanctus.pdf

A polyphonic Sanctus does not in any way imply a quiet reading of the Eucharistic Prayer. If it is long, the priest waits. If you recall, during Papal liturgies when such music has been used, that is exactly what the Pope does. Furthermore, the nature of the canon lawyer’s argument with special laws and approval in forma specifica cannot be applied here because there is no analogous case with a document.