The Canon of the Mass and the secret voice

[KennethD]

Is anyone else here bothered by the fact that the priest reads the Canon of the Mass aloud? Sometimes I feel as if he’s reading to the congregation rather than praying to God even if I know the priest is very orthodox and I shouldn’t feel that way. I’ve only been to one Mass in Extraordinary Form, so while I do love that older use, I have very little experience with it and this topic comes from my own experience in Novus Ordo and Anglican Use parishes.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Is anyone else here bothered by the fact that the priest reads the Canon of the Mass aloud? Sometimes I feel as if he’s reading to the congregation rather than praying to God even if I know the priest is very orthodox and I shouldn’t feel that way. I’ve only been to one Mass in Extraordinary Form, so while I do love that older use, I have very little experience with it and this topic comes from my own experience in Novus Ordo and Anglican Use parishes.

I am bothered by the fact that in the EF, the priest doesn’t read the Canon out loud. I happen to think that the EF is beautiful and I really do love it, and wish I could love it more, but I have several problems with it, this being one of them.

I agree with you, though, insofar as that when a priest reads the Canon to the people or seems to be, it both takes away from the objective reality that is going on and from the subjective experience of it. The Canon ought to be directed towards God. Celebrating ad orientem could fix this. I have a very orthodox priest, who is a very priestly priest, and I am sure he is praying to God, but you’re right, it just doens’t seem that way.

That being said, I do have real problems with it being said silently. The people ought to hear what is being said to God on their behalf. For one, it helps them to appreciate the sacrifice that is going on. It also eliminates what I consider a very nasty sort of effect of the silent reading: the impression that the people shouldn’t hear the Canon. It can feel like the priest is talking to God about things that really are secrets, as if something shady is going on. This is the work of the salvation of the people… a work that ought to occur in the daylight, not the dark of night… it is something which is so intimately connected with the eternal destiny of the people that when it’s secret, it really can create various very unusual impressions.

It reminds me of gnosticism and the eastern mystery religions. It’s as if these offerings of Christ are secret and must be kept hidden… I really don’t like it.

Peace and God bless

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Is anyone else here bothered by the fact that the priest reads the Canon of the Mass aloud? Sometimes I feel as if he’s reading to the congregation rather than praying to God even if I know the priest is very orthodox and I shouldn’t feel that way.

I agree with you, though, insofar as that when a priest reads the Canon to the people or seems to be, it both takes away from the objective reality that is going on and from the subjective experience of it.

So reading can not be prayer?

 

[Sanctus]

Is anyone else here bothered by the fact that the priest reads the Canon of the Mass aloud? Sometimes I feel as if he’s reading to the congregation rather than praying to God even if I know the priest is very orthodox and I shouldn’t feel that way. I’ve only been to one Mass in Extraordinary Form, so while I do love that older use, I have very little experience with it and this topic comes from my own experience in Novus Ordo and Anglican Use parishes.

I understand where you are coming from and I must confess a certain affinity for a silent Canon. The silence of the moment does tend to convey the message that something particularly intimate and solemn is taking place between the priest and God; especially when contrasted with the chant and song in the rest of the Solemn High Mass.

 

[KennethD]

May I remind everyone (especially Lazerlike42) of the 9th canon of the of the twenty-second session of the Council of Trent

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.

One should be careful before speaking so strongly against an old and venerable practice.

 

[Lazerlike42]

May I remind everyone (especially Lazerlike42) of the 9th canon of the of the twenty-second session of the Council of Trent

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.

One should be careful before speaking so strongly against an old and venerable practice.

Certainly! However, nobody has come close to violating this canon. What the canon rejects is condemning the practice of consecrating the elements in a low tone. This would be to say that the practices of the Church are in fact wrong or immoral. The historical context of this is not required to understand it, but it is useful to point out. This came in a time when the Protestant reformers were condemning the Church’s practice as being wrong - as being contrary to the faith.

One can say that they dislike the silent consecration, or that they believe that an audible consecration would be better, without condemning the silent one. It would be similar to the differences between the Eastern and Western practices of initiation. In the East, infants are given Baptism, Confirmation (Chrismation, in Eastern terminology), and Communion all at once. In the West, these three Sacraments are spread out over around 10 or more years. There can be legitimate disagreements about which practice is better, or about why someone feels one practice may not be as prudent or as good as the other, but one may not condemn and utterly reject either practice as contrary to the faith.

Peace and God bless

 

[KennethD]

Right, sorry if I seemed harsh. I tend to be kind of paranoid about fellow Catholics’ orthodoxy sometimes. It’s just a fault of mine.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Right, sorry if I seemed harsh. I tend to be kind of paranoid about fellow Catholics’ orthodoxy sometimes. It’s just a fault of mine.

Sure! I know the feeling. It’s hard to live in a world of faithless people, and when so many of the people who are *supposed *to be your fellow brothers in faith are just as bad, it’s easy to start to get paranoid.

A recognized fault is a good thing, in any case.

 

[preV2tradcath]

Click here.
Scroll down a little to #1 which talks about the silence of the canon. I am glad it is silent.
Click here for one other good article.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Click here.
Scroll down a little to #1 which talks about the silence of the canon. I am glad it is silent.

I read this, and I have several problems with it. The theology of it is just… at the least it is iffy in some ways. It seems to embrace a theology of the Mass which makes too great a distinction between the Sacrifice on Calvary and the Sacrifice of the Mass. It also makes too great a distinction between act and reality, as if the two are different. This is most evident in the final
paragraph:

Using vocal words in the canon would defy this divine reality, it would seemingly bring the events down to a level of speech and thought, rather than action and sacrifice. We must feel with our heart and soul the event taking place, not hear with our ears the words which enact the event. Only silence can penetrate this mystery, with our spirit lifting us above that temporal actions of the priest into the divine and eternal reality of the High Priest: our Lord on the Cross.

The author severs in an unacceptable way the reality of the event taking place and the words which enact the event. The words themselves are a part of the event. When the priest says “we… offer up to Thy excellent majesty… a victim…” he really is offering Christ to God - not just representing it or enacting it. The author’s defense of the silent Canon seems to deny this reality.

One can defend the silent Canon, but this is not a way to do it.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Using vocal words in the canon would defy this divine reality, it would seemingly bring the events down to a level of speech and thought, rather than action and sacrifice.

The very fact the priest pronounces these words with his lips and tongue IS what makes it vocal prayer, even if said in a low voice.

 

[JimG]

The priest should not read the canon as if he were reading TO the congregation. The canon is a prayer which is directed to the Father through the Son, in unity with the Holy Spirit.

The priest is praying this prayer to the Father, and in the process recalling to mind and to reality the sacrifice of the Son. The congregation is part of the unity of the Church which participates in this prayer, though silently.

As long as the priest doesn’t think of this as a performance, or a reading, it should be fine. It is a prayer to the Father on behalf of the whole Church.

 

[thistle]

May I remind everyone (especially Lazerlike42) of the 9th canon of the of the twenty-second session of the Council of Trent

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.

One should be careful before speaking so strongly against an old and venerable practice.

A Pope cannot bind future popes with regard to the Mass, the form of which is not a dogma. Only the words of consecration cannot be changed.

 

[KennethD]

The Pope is still at the service of Tradition, and even he could not violate the Canons of Trent. No Pope has ever condemned the practice of the silent canon. There seems to be a misconception about the Pope having absolute authority. The Pope is the guardian and ultimately a servant of the Tradition brought to us by the Apostles. He does not have absolute power to change the faith, nor would the Holy Ghost allow a Pope to try and wield that kind of power to promulgate falsity in a way that would be morally binding to the faithful.

 

[thistle]

The Pope is still at the service of Tradition, and even he could not violate the Canons of Trent. No Pope has ever condemned the practice of the silent canon. There seems to be a misconception about the Pope having absolute authority. The Pope is the guardian and ultimately a servant of the Tradition brought to us by the Apostles. He does not have absolute power to change the faith, nor would the Holy Ghost allow a Pope to try and wield that kind of power to promulgate falsity in a way that would be morally binding to the faithful.

I repeat that while the words of consecration cannot be changed, the form of the Mass can be changed and one Pope CANNOT bind future Popes on this matter.

 

[porthos11]

Pope Benedict wrote favorably about the silent Canon.

There are benefits to both the silent and audible Eucharistic Prayers. I personally prefer the audible Eucharistic Prayer. The audible Anaphora is also the norm in the Eastern Churches (because the people need to respond “Amen” to the institution narrative).

My take. Respect both the venerable tradition of the EF, and the due authority of the Church to reform its liturgy.

 

[benedictgal]

Pope Benedict wrote favorably about the silent Canon.

There are benefits to both the silent and audible Eucharistic Prayers. I personally prefer the audible Eucharistic Prayer. The audible Anaphora is also the norm in the Eastern Churches (because the people need to respond “Amen” to the institution narrative).

My take. Respect both the venerable tradition of the EF, and the due authority of the Church to reform its liturgy.

Yes, he did, in fact write favorably about the silent Canon. Unfortunately, I lent my pastor my copy of the Spirit of the Liturgy. It’s in there, I believe. I’ll just have to wait to get it back so that I can type up what he said.

Incidentally, when my PV celebrates Mass versus populum, he raises his eyes when he prays the Canon, not looking at the people. When he celebrates ad orientsum, he raises his eyes and looks at the crucifix as he prays the Canon. The Canon is directed to the Father.

 

[Chatter163]

I repeat that while the words of consecration cannot be changed, the form of the Mass can be changed and one Pope CANNOT bind future Popes on this matter.

What do you mean “the words of consecration cannot be changed”? They WERE changed in the missal of Paul VI.

 

[benedictgal]

What do you mean “the words of consecration cannot be changed”? They WERE changed in the missal of Paul VI.

How were they changed. The only change was that the “mystery of faith” was moved to stand alone for the memorial acclamation. But, the words of institution were not changed. This is what the Roman Missal of 1966 says (English translation):

Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you.

When supper ended, he took the cup.

Again, he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said:

Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all men so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.

Now, pro multis in the Latin will be re-inserted when the new translation of the Roman Missal is released. This was a major slip up on the part of ICEL. Now, in the EF of the Mass, the mystery of faith is part of the institution narrative. In the OF, it stands alone and is used, as I noted earlier, to announce the memorial acclamation (this was something new in the Pauline Missal).

 

[Lazerlike42]

How were they changed. The only change was that the “mystery of faith” was moved to stand alone for the memorial acclamation. But, the words of institution were not changed. This is what the Roman Missal of 1966 says (English translation):

Now, pro multis in the Latin will be re-inserted when the new translation of the Roman Missal is released. This was a major slip up on the part of ICEL. Now, in the EF of the Mass, the mystery of faith is part of the institution narrative. In the OF, it stands alone and is used, as I noted earlier, to announce the memorial acclamation (this was something new in the Pauline Missal).

I wouldn’t even call it new. If I’m not mistaken, it was done this way in various other canons throughout history.