The Mass

[ProVobis]

Fair enough. I did not mean “norm” in the sense of Church teachings/requirements, but in the sense of being the normal (as in usual or most common) practice of most of the faithful.

Now that we got that straight, that also depends on the culture we’re referring to. For example, the Polish go to Church whether they are “living in sin” or not. So do many hispanics. And they know when not to go to communion. So it’s not a matter of how often some go to communion but whether they should go at all.

Perhaps what Pius X said got misinterpreted in the English, however, because my understanding of what he said was that we should lead our lives so we can receive every day. Not that we should receive more often regardless of our state of soul.

 

[MarkThompson]

Incidentally, I have expressed my views on the the reforms of the Council (and post-Council) and the potential outlook for the future at somewhat greater length (though extemporaneously) here and here.

 

[surritter]

I went to St. John Cantius for Law Mass last night. It was extremely pre-Conciliar…
No wonder people are so fiercely attached to the Leonine Prayers (now suppressed, but illicitly done; and marking the first time of the night when I heard the celebrant’s voice) after Mass…

Wait a minute, here. (I know the conversation has gone in a different direction, but I just got around to reading this.)

Why do you say that the prayer composed by Pope Leo is “suppressed” and “illicit”? I would say that simply because it was removed from the prescribed order of the Mass doesn’t really justify such dire words. You seem to imply that priests who wish to say the St. Michael prayer with their congregation (after the dismissal, mind you) are somehow being disobedient to Mother Church! I’m just asking…

 

[MarkThompson]

Wait a minute, here. (I know the conversation has gone in a different direction, but I just got around to reading this.)

Why do you say that the prayer composed by Pope Leo is “suppressed” and “illicit”? I would say that simply because it was removed from the prescribed order of the Mass doesn’t really justify such dire words. You seem to imply that priests who wish to say the St. Michael prayer with their congregation (after the dismissal, mind you) are somehow being disobedient to Mother Church! I’m just asking…

Yeah, that’s what I think. Inter Oecumenici (1965) says “The last gospel is omitted; the Leonine prayers are suppressed.” Now, the Last Gospel is part of the order of Mass in the 1962 Missal, but the Leonine prayers are not and never were. The present permission to use the liturgical books of 1962 therefore includes the Last Gospel, but cannot include the Leonine prayers.

As to the suggestion that, when the Holy See says “X is suppressed,” you can just keep on doing it anyway and claim that it is merely a spontaneous outburst of prayer, that must be a joke. What words, exactly, must the Vatican use to be taken seriously? If the Vatican says, “Recessional hymns are forbidden,” do you think a parish should keep on singing recessional hymns in exactly the same way they’ve always done, but claim, “It is after the dismissal! Are you saying that a priest who wants to sing a song with his congregation at some random time (which, by total coincidence, always happens to be as he is processing out of Mass) is behaving illicitly?!”

 

[surritter]

Yeah, that’s what I think. Inter Oecumenici (1965) says “The last gospel is omitted; the Leonine prayers are suppressed.” Now, the Last Gospel is part of the order of Mass in the 1962 Missal, but the Leonine prayers are not and never were. The present permission to use the liturgical books of 1962 therefore includes the Last Gospel, but cannot include the Leonine prayers.

As to the suggestion that, when the Holy See says “X is suppressed,” you can just keep on doing it anyway and claim that it is merely a spontaneous outburst of prayer, that must be a joke. What words, exactly, must the Vatican use to be taken seriously? If the Vatican says, “Recessional hymns are forbidden,” do you think a parish should keep on singing recessional hymns in exactly the same way they’ve always done, but claim, “It is after the dismissal! Are you saying that a priest who wants to sing a song with his congregation at some random time (which, by total coincidence, always happens to be as he is processing out of Mass) is behaving illicitly?!”

Well, I have no idea how to respond to this. (No liturgical documents since 1965’s Inter Oecumenici have ever mentioned the St. Michael prayer?)

Many parishes with seemingly orthodox pastors have allowed the St. Michael prayer after Mass, and I suspect that many folks in the pews find it a refreshing acknowledgment of the reality of sin and the Evil One, as opposed to the fluffy homilies of the 1970s pastors, who seem to have such a disdain for anything that mention sin.

Of course, if it’s suppressed, then it’s suppressed. I’ll gently let the good young priests know that their insertion of the St. Michael prayer is actually disobedient.

At the same time, my hope is that all things that are frowned upon (explicitly, as you point out, or implicitly, by the lack of recognition in documents such as the GIRM) be aggressively stamped out, such as:

• holding hands during the Our Father
• double genuflection during exposition
• applause in church (other than for special occasions, as recognized by the celebrant)
• secular music
• use of the Canadian lectionary by US parishes
• “Keep in Mind that Jesus Christ Has Died for Us…” as a Memorial Acclamation

I know these things don’t occur at St. John Cantius, but I’m rattling off a list of crud that I often encounter here in Michigan.

 

[MarkThompson]

Well, I have no idea how to respond to this. (No liturgical documents since 1965’s Inter Oecumenici have ever mentioned the St. Michael prayer?)

Not that I know of, although Pope John Paul II mentioned it in 1994, saying, “Although this prayer is no longer recited at the end of Mass, I ask everyone not to forget it and to recite it to obtain help in the battle against the forces of darkness and against the spirit of this world.” It’s not that the St. Michael Prayer (or, needless to say, the Hail Mary and Salve Regina which are also part of the Leonine prayers) were themselves abolished, it’s that the Leonine prayers – that arrangement of prayers, said at this specific time – was suppressed. If a group wanted to say the Aves, Salve Regina, St. Michael, and so on, after the Rosary or Stations of the Cross, that would be fine and wouldn’t be covered by Inter Oecumenici.

Many parishes with seemingly orthodox pastors have allowed the St. Michael prayer after Mass, and I suspect that many folks in the pews find it a refreshing acknowledgment of the reality of sin and the Evil One, as opposed to the fluffy homilies of the 1970s pastors, who seem to have such a disdain for anything that mention sin.

I can see why it is a confusing issue, since, by Papal decree, those prayers were said in 1962 even though they were not part of the liturgical books of 1962. In any event, it is certainly not as bad an abuse as using the second (or third, depending on how you count it) Confiteor, which was abolished and is expressly forbidden by the 1962 Missale.

At the same time, my hope is that all things that are frowned upon (explicitly, as you point out, or implicitly, by the lack of recognition in documents such as the GIRM) be aggressively stamped out, such as:

• holding hands during the Our Father
• double genuflection during exposition
• applause in church (other than for special occasions, as recognized by the celebrant)
• secular music
• use of the Canadian lectionary by US parishes
• “Keep in Mind that Jesus Christ Has Died for Us…” as a Memorial Acclamation

I know these things don’t occur at St. John Cantius, but I’m rattling off a list of crud that I often encounter here in Michigan.

Yes, those things all suck!

 

[laszlo]

Yeah, that’s what I think. Inter Oecumenici (1965) says “The last gospel is omitted; the Leonine prayers are suppressed.” Now, the Last Gospel is part of the order of Mass in the 1962 Missal, but the Leonine prayers are not and never were. The present permission to use the liturgical books of 1962 therefore includes the Last Gospel, but cannot include the Leonine prayers.

I disagree with this interpretation. Until 1970 there was no new typical edition, the 1962 Missal was used, with the changes as inserts. This was not without precedence, Pius XII is 1955 ordered significant changes without new books, so the Mass was prayed from the 1920 missal with those changes.

The Clear Creek Benedictines and the French Abbey Notre Dame de Fontgombault is using legally the 1962 missal according to the 1967 rubrics.

The definition for the 1962 probably was stated because the FSSP is using that (so does the SSPX with wich the reunion is still open), and it seems to be assertive, not restrictive to the later rubrics around that Missal. Some diocesan priests add the former suffragium prayers as Collect, Secret and Postcommunion, probably from ignorance, this does not makes them schismatic. Many priests did do in the sixties too, that was as they started and wanted to finish their life in that way.

As for the Leonine prayer either the St John Cantius Fathers and the Institute of Christ the King is adding that to the Mass. Our new pastor even adds part of it to the new rite. It is not forbidden to pray after the mass.

 

[InquisitorMax]

I’ve read that the Low Mass is a concession and that High Mass is the norm. So, if you find the Low Mass lacking, it’s the nature of that Mass; it’s because a High Mass can’t be done, for lack of time and personnel, I guess.

I also read that the Low Mass was mandated where Chant could not be done properly i.e. your schola was very poor.

Bring back the 1920’s Missal, I say. I know one priest who says it. The rascal