Why not chalice on altar?

[JD27076]

In the Old Extraordinary Rite, the chalice was placed on the altar during the duration of the mass with a chapel veil… (Presumably more or less correct.)

Saturday, I served a daily mass with a visiting priest who had the chalice on the altar covered with a veil, which to me looked beautiful…however today I asked my priest if we could do that, then he explained to me that this was only in the old rite, that we are not allowed to do that in the Novus Ordo anymore.

Why is that? … If it fits, do you think priest should be able to adapt old liturgical customs to the new rite? It’s not “creating” new liturgy, it’s just taking approved practices from an old Latin rite and adding a bit here to the new Latin rite.

 

[L_Marshall]

Chalice veils are allowed, and often used in the Ordinary Form of the Mass. My parish does it every Sunday. If you watch one of the Pope’s Masses on TV, they always use a chalice veil.

 

[CB_Catholic]

In the Old Extraordinary Rite, the chalice was placed on the altar during the duration of the mass with a chapel veil… (Presumably more or less correct.)

Saturday, I served a daily mass with a visiting priest who had the chalice on the altar covered with a veil, which to me looked beautiful…however today I asked my priest if we could do that, then he explained to me that this was only in the old rite, that we are not allowed to do that in the Novus Ordo anymore.

Why is that? … If it fits, do you think priest should be able to adapt old liturgical customs to the new rite? It’s not “creating” new liturgy, it’s just taking approved practices from an old Latin rite and adding a bit here to the new Latin rite.

I can’t claim to know the rubrics about the use of the chalice veil in the OF, but in answer to your question–NO. It is not acceptable to add elements to the OF from the EF any more than it is acceptable to add elements from the OF to the EF or from any other rite. It would be a liturgical abuse. That is the general principle. The two rites are to be done as their rubrics prescribe.

 

[L_Marshall]

I dug up a citation. General Instructions to the Roman Missal, ¶118:

It is a praiseworthy practice for the chalice to be covered with a veil, which may be either of the color of the day or white.

I would also like to say one thing: The EF effecting the OF is NOT inherently bad. Pope Benedict praised this as “mutual enrichment.” We should, however, not incorporate practices that violate liturgical law for either form by taking things from the opposite form. Because of how specific the liturgical laws are for the EF, however, it is very rare to incorporate parts of the OF into the EF.

For instance:
Should the priest desire to keep place his forearms on the altar for consecration in the OF, or to use a maniple, this is possible, and permitted. However, a priest would be unable to celebrate today’s liturgy in purple vestments, since the season of Septuagisima is suppressed in the OF.

Likewise, a priest celebrating the EF is greatly benefitted from remembering the people are present (which is one effect that bleeds into the ars celebrandi in the EF which was lacking before), but he would be unable to use females as altar servers.

Additionally, liturgical law can sometimes be bent for the sake of customs which have been observed “since times immemorial.” This is why in Spain you sometimes see altar servers acting as crucifer wearing a tunicle (the vestment of the subdeacon).

 

[andrewstx]

I dug up a citation. General Instructions to the Roman Missal, ¶118:

I would also like to say one thing: The EF effecting the OF is NOT inherently bad. Pope Benedict praised this as “mutual enrichment.” We should, however, not incorporate practices that violate liturgical law for either form by taking things from the opposite form. Because of how specific the liturgical laws are for the EF, however, it is very rare to incorporate parts of the OF into the EF.

For instance:
Should the priest desire to keep place his forearms on the altar for consecration in the OF, or to use a maniple, this is possible, and permitted. However, a priest would be unable to celebrate today’s liturgy in purple vestments, since the season of Septuagisima is suppressed in the OF.

Likewise, a priest celebrating the EF is greatly benefitted from remembering the people are present (which is one effect that bleeds into the ars celebrandi in the EF which was lacking before), but he would be unable to use females as altar servers.

Additionally, liturgical law can sometimes be bent for the sake of customs which have been observed “since times immemorial.” This is why in Spain you sometimes see altar servers acting as crucifer wearing a tunicle (the vestment of the subdeacon).

With the suppression of minor orders for Solemn High Mass someone sill has to dress like a subdeacon.

I am not so sure that I like seeing the chalice on the altar through the Mass. To many times I have seen Protestants leaving a chalice on their altars… as a decoration! They don’t even use a chalice, they use tiny shot glasses instead.

 

[FrDavid96]

In the Old Extraordinary Rite, the chalice was placed on the altar during the duration of the mass with a chapel veil… (Presumably more or less correct.)

Saturday, I served a daily mass with a visiting priest who had the chalice on the altar covered with a veil, which to me looked beautiful…however today I asked my priest if we could do that, then he explained to me that this was only in the old rite, that we are not allowed to do that in the Novus Ordo anymore.

Why is that? … If it fits, do you think priest should be able to adapt old liturgical customs to the new rite? It’s not “creating” new liturgy, it’s just taking approved practices from an old Latin rite and adding a bit here to the new Latin rite.

Placing the chalice on the altar before Mass is not a matter of “old rite” versus “new rite.”

In the GIRM from 1973, there was a more detailed description of what happens in a Mass without a Congregation. Paragraph 221 states that the chalice is placed on the altar, unless it was there from the beginning of Mass. This remained the GIRM for the United States until the new translation took effect a few years ago.

That tells us that this is not a matter of mixing the older missal and the newer missal.

 

[John_Lilburne]

To expand on the previous post, the current Roman Missal has in the General Instruction, in the section “MASS AT WHICH ONLY ONE MINISTER PARTICIPATES”:

“255. Before Mass, the necessary vessels are prepared either at the credence table or on the right hand side of the altar.”

It also has “265. In the Liturgy of the Eucharist, everything is done as at Mass with the people, except for the following.” One of these exceptions is:

“270. The Priest purifies the chalice at the credence table or at the altar. If the chalice is purified at the altar, it may be carried to the credence table by the minister or may be arranged once again on the altar, at the side.”

For MASS WITH THE PEOPLE, in the part “Mass without a Deacon” it has:
“139. When the Universal Prayer is over, all sit, and the Offertory Chant begins (cf. no. 74). An acolyte or other lay minister places the corporal, the purificatory, the chalice, the pall, and the Missal on the altar.”

 

[otjm]

Actually, there may be a bit of logic to it. In the OF, the Liturgy of the Word is longer, with the addition of the OT reading. The focus is clearly on the reading and the chanting of the psalm. All during this, the altar is bare.

Then the Liturgy of the Eucharist begins, an the focus changes from the ambo and the readings, to the altar; and the altar is prepared.

In other words it is a mater of focus, and the change of focus.

 

[FrDavid96]

Actually, there may be a bit of logic to it. In the OF, the Liturgy of the Word is longer, with the addition of the OT reading. The focus is clearly on the reading and the chanting of the psalm. All during this, the altar is bare.

Then the Liturgy of the Eucharist begins, an the focus changes from the ambo and the readings, to the altar; and the altar is prepared.

In other words it is a mater of focus, and the change of focus.

Yes, there is a sense of focus (at least there can be, and I would agree with someone who says there should be).

But that’s not the same thing as a prohibition against something else.

In the Missal of Pope Paul VI (the OF) there was a specific provision for placing the chalice on the altar before Mass, and that possibility remains when a priest is celebrating Mass without a congregation. What that tells us is that it is not an “absolute” that the chalice can never be placed on the altar before Mass starts. Contrast that to other liturgical norms that do make it clear that flowers can never be placed on the altar (near yes, but not “on.”)

Even in a Mass with a congregation, there can be circumstances where placing the chalice on the altar simply makes sense; in particular, if there is no server or if the credence table is too far from the altar to be practical. I’m thinking especially of weekday Masses.

The reason why I decided to post here is that the question was about mixing the Missals of Bl John XXIII and Paul VI (EF and OF); but this is not about mixing the Missals. Mixing is something which we should not do, but at the same time, it should not be used as an excuse for avoiding something which the priest simply does not like. Let’s not call it mixing unless it truly is that.

As I see it, if the priest (to whom the OP made a request) had answered by saying something like “the rubrics tell us that the chalice is placed on the credence table before Mass, not the altar” that would have been a better and more accurate response than to say that placing it on the altar is not allowed in the Novus Ordo.

We don’t need more confusion about the Missal of Pope Paul VI, we need more clarity.

 

[andrewstx]

FrDavid96:

I have never seen a Mass without a congregation since I would be a congregation if I were present.

How do things work in such a celebration? Does the celebrant say/do everything? Does he respond to himself IOW?

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid96:

I have never seen a Mass without a congregation since I would be a congregation if I were present.

How do things work in such a celebration? Does the celebrant say/do everything? Does he respond to himself IOW?

Some parts are omitted; such as the words the priest addresses to the congregation. It’s all described in the GIRM.

254…the greetings, the instructions, and the blessing at the end of Mass are omitted.

Basically, the parts where the priest addresses the people like “Brethren, let us acknowledge our sins…” are not said. Of course, there is no “The Lord be with you.”

Try this link, but you need to scroll down to part III

usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/general-instruction-of-the-roman-missal/girm-chapter-4.cfm

It is not exactly described because the rubrics still presume that there will be one other person present; but if it’s the priest himself, he omits the parts where he addresses the congregation.

 

[otjm]

Yes, there is a sense of focus (at least there can be, and I would agree with someone who says there should be).

But that’s not the same thing as a prohibition against something else.

In the Missal of Pope Paul VI (the OF) there was a specific provision for placing the chalice on the altar before Mass, and that possibility remains when a priest is celebrating Mass without a congregation. What that tells us is that it is not an “absolute” that the chalice can never be placed on the altar before Mass starts. Contrast that to other liturgical norms that do make it clear that flowers can never be placed on the altar (near yes, but not “on.”)

Even in a Mass with a congregation, there can be circumstances where placing the chalice on the altar simply makes sense; in particular, if there is no server or if the credence table is too far from the altar to be practical. I’m thinking especially of weekday Masses.

The reason why I decided to post here is that the question was about mixing the Missals of Bl John XXIII and Paul VI (EF and OF); but this is not about mixing the Missals. Mixing is something which we should not do, but at the same time, it should not be used as an excuse for avoiding something which the priest simply does not like. Let’s not call it mixing unless it truly is that.

As I see it, if the priest (to whom the OP made a request) had answered by saying something like “the rubrics tell us that the chalice is placed on the credence table before Mass, not the altar” that would have been a better and more accurate response than to say that placing it on the altar is not allowed in the Novus Ordo.

We don’t need more confusion about the Missal of Pope Paul VI, we need more clarity.

Agreed. I only make my comment because there is a sense among some that the rules of the OF don’t make sense, or they question why it had to change. My proposal is not from the writings of the liturgists who shape the Mass; just from observation.