Pope Weighing Changes in Novus Ordo?

"Reform of the reform" ping!

I hope ad orientam turns out to be part of this deal also, if indeed it's true. If there's one single thing which would help to rid Fr. Bob of the idea that he's an entertainer, it's turning him around and having him face Jesus in the tabernacle, rather than his "audience".

OHH MONK and NYer

...and moving the Sign of Peace to the Offertory.

IMHO the Lord's Prayer and the Sign of Peace should both come after communion. It ties in nicely with the dismissal: this mass is ended, go in peace.

Dump the Sign of Peace altogether. Bunch of old touchie feelie prottie hippies came up with it anyway.

Dump the Sign of Peace altogether. Bunch of old touchie feelie prottie hippies came up with it anyway.

Amen, brother. I do my best to avoid the handshake and would be thrilled if it were scrapped completely. Also, requiring the consecration to be said in Latin would be a tremendous improvement, as it would to much to eliminate clerical abuse during this critical part of the Mass. It bugs the heck out of me when Father Creative deviates from the standard words of consecration with his own "improvements" (e.g., changing "gave it to his disciples" to "gave it to friends," etc.).

Thursday, July 03, 2008

Changes in the Liturgy (OF) - All Sacramental Formulae in Latin?

by Gregor Kollmorgen
------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------

Ignazio Ingrao, religion writer of the Italian weekly Panorama, has the following article in this weeks Panorama (NLM translation):

Quote:
BENEDICT CHANGES THE MASS - THE STUDY OF THE NEW LITURGY ASSIGNED TO THE CONGREGATION FOR WORSHIP
The rite of the Mass could change. According to some indiscretions, Benedict XVI has charged the Congregation for Divine Worship to study some modifications in the liturgy. In particular, the Pope is said to have the intention to restore Latin for the formula for the Eucharistic consecration within the Mass in the "vernacular language", i.e. the one celebrated in the different national languages. The same could happen to the formulae of Baptism, Confirmation, Confession and of the other sacraments. In addition, the exchange of peace among the faithful during the Mass, which today takes place prior to the distribution of the Eucharist, could be anticipated (as in the Ambrosian rite) to the offertory so as not to disturb the recollection that precedes Communion.
These would be changes which would be added to the changes in the liturgy and regarding sacred vestments which the Pope, together with his Master of Ceremonies, Monsignor Guido Marini, has made in recent months, to recover ancient traditions: the restoration of the crucifix at the center of the altar, the distribution of Communion to the faithful in the mouth while kneeling, the recovery of the pastoral staff of Pius IX (the ferula), the changing of the style of pallium (the strip of white wool with red crosses worn by the Pope), the restoration of the papal throne used in the Consistory and the celebration of Mass with the back to the assembly, as happened in January in the Sistine Chapel.

Evidently if this is accurate, this is huge and wonderful news. However, so far we do well to treat this with great caution and as what it is: a rumour. It should be noted, though, that the moving of the sign of peace to the offertory is something of which Pope Benedict had already indicated in Sacramentum Caritatis that he would let the CDW study it. But the big news would obviously be the recovery of Latin for all the sacramental formulae. This would not only be a recovery of tradition for these themselves, but it would very effectively underscore the importance of Latin for the enitre liturgy of the Roman rite at its core, and might also help to regain a sense for the importance of the sacramental formulae which has been lost or at least blurred in many places. These are some first thoughts right after reading this; perhaps we will post some further considerations later. But keep in mind that this so far is just a rumour, and even the rumour only says that this is being studied.

Posted by Gregor Kollmorgen on 3.7.08 -

NLM

If true, the most important, -- really radical -- would be the ad oriented posture and kneeling for the Eucharist, in my opinion. The use of Latin comes close third.

Please, Lord, make it be.

I read about this a couple of days ago and think it would be wonderful. I doubt that good old Fr Bob is capable of ad libbing in Latin, so that would certainly put an end to one abuse. They’re not supposed to fiddle with the words of the Consecration, but some of them do, at least slightly, and occasionally I’ve wondered if the Mass is actually valid when they get through with it.

I wonder if this move (if it turns out to be true) is the Pope’s way of expressing his annoyance with the shenanigans of the USCCB, which rejected the changes to the English text of the Novus Ordo. The bishops, led by my bishop, unfortunately, decided that the new, more faithful and more linguistically elegant translation would be too difficult for “John and Mary Catholic.” While a mail vote is now going to be taken on it because there were some bishops who weren’t present at the meeting, the general response of a certain knot of bishops (Galeone, Hubbard, Trautman, etc.) was not only negative but insulting. My bishop said “with all due respect to the Pope,” and then went on to say the new translation had too many big words in it and that, on top of that, he didn’t want the old Mass and would refuse to celebrate it (not that anybody was telling him to) and that he didn’t want Latin brought back.

Hah! I think the Pope has perhaps gotten a little sick of the resistance and disobedience of a this type of bishop, not only in the US, but in other places where they have been resisting his improvements to the Mass.

I wish these things would happen and happen soon.

In The Middle East we simply bow to the people around you....

The tradition in the Byzantine rite (Catholic) churches, as well as the Orthodox churches, was a simple bow. Personally, I think that’s fine. I hate the group hug, and I particularly hate it when Father comes down and starts working the room.

Me too... the Priest Coming off the altar makes it Borderline Cirucus say hello as you leave!!

Wait until the American Bishops hear about this. The problem is that it is not only obeying Rome, but also against anyone who is for bringing back certain Catholic traditions. Remember when Mother Angelica got into that argument with LA’s Cardinal Mahony?

“Dump the Sign of Peace altogether. Bunch of old touchie feelie prottie hippies came up with it anyway.”

Actually, the exchange of a kiss of peace is very ancient in the Church, at least in the East and hardly the work of proddie hippies. It died out in the Orthodox Church some centuries ago though we still see it in hierarchial liturgies and in concelebrated Liturgies. It is exchanged before the Creed.

It bugs the heck out of me when Father Creative deviates from the standard words of consecration with his own "improvements" (e.g., changing "gave it to his disciples" to "gave it to friends," etc.).

You need to confront Father Creative after Mass and remind him that he is not allowed to ad-lib and if he continues to engage in liturgical abuse you'll have no choice but to report him to the pastor, the bishop and Rome.

According to the Italian weekly, the Pope is weighing the use of Latin for the formula of Consecration at Mass.

Excellent! This will ensure that all Catholics receive a validly consecrated Eucharist.

the Priest Coming off the altar makes it Borderline Cirucus

That is not allowed and when it happens, said Priest needs to be confronted after Mass and reminded that Mass isn't a free-for-all.

The Rite of Peace

82. The Rite of Peace follows, by which the Church asks for peace and unity for herself and for the whole human family, and the faithful express to each other their ecclesial communion and mutual charity before communicating in the Sacrament.

As for the sign of peace to be given, the manner is to be established by Conferences of Bishops in accordance with the culture and customs of the peoples. It is, however, appropriate that each person offer the sign of peace only to those who are nearest and in a sober manner.(emphasis added)

moving the Sign of Peace to the Offertory

Another excellent recommendation! Scripturally, it makes more sense.

If there's one single thing which would help to rid Fr. Bob of the idea that he's an entertainer, it's turning him around and having him face Jesus in the tabernacle, rather than his "audience".

Moving the presider's chair to the side of the altar would be a better move. Personally, I don't have a problem with the priest facing the congregation. It is very beautiful to watch the priest's actions during the consecration. I do take issue with those pastors who have moved the Tabernacle out of the Sanctuary and placed their chair directly behind the altar.

It bugs the heck out of me when Father Creative deviates from the standard words of consecration with his own "improvements" (e.g., changing "gave it to his disciples" to "gave it to friends," etc.).

AMEN Brother Testify

I really hope that wasn't showing my dabbling in Protism years ago to much

You need to confront Father Creative after Mass and remind him that he is not allowed to ad-lib and if he continues to engage in liturgical abuse you'll have no choice but to report him to the pastor, the bishop and Rome.

I am fortunate that in my parish we are very orthodox.

Unfortunatley we also have Bishop (Sure we can pay for an abortion) Delorenzo where I live now.

At my old parish near Buffalo NY, the priests liked to Ad-lib, and the Bishops(s) were more liberal. My mother took classes next to the Chancery that were filled with New age stuff, taught by Nuns and Priests.

I don't know how many times I tried to tell her, but her response was that these were nuns and priests.

the exchange of a kiss of peace is very ancient in the Church,

Yes, but likely not executed as in too many American parishes today! At daily Mass in my church, everyone looks all around, smiling and waving to anyone and everyone -- right, left, front, back. Friendly, certainly, but it looks more like Old Home Week or the seventh-inning stretch or an Irish wake!

Bump!

"gave it to friends,"

One visiting priest does this all the time, and he also substitutes God for Father at every opportunity. I feel so angry I feel like I didn't go to Mass.

“Yes, but likely not executed as in too many American parishes today!”

Maybe. Whatever the expression is would be, I suppose, a reflection of the culture. Anglo Saxon type Americans aren’t really into hugging and kissing, but Greeks and Russians and Arabs, for example, are. The point of the exercise was to demonstrate an expression of Christian love before proclaiming and confessing the Trinity and proceeding, with love, to the liturgy of the Faithful and the Consecration.

I wish they would just get rid of the sign of peace, too. We have had people turn their backs on us, sneer at us, or look horrified, when we just bow and not want to shake hands.

But let us not forget about the holding of hands at the Our Father. If my husband and I are not stationed at the either end of the kids, we will have some people try to force our children to hold their hands during this time.

**Dump the Sign of Peace altogether.**

Bump that!

Lord, please let Pope Benedict install this over the votes of the USCCB.

**I wonder if this move (if it turns out to be true) is the Pope’s way of expressing his annoyance with the shenanigans of the USCCB,**

Exactly!

**I do take issue with those pastors who have moved the Tabernacle out of the Sanctuary and placed it in a Day Chapel or somewhere that it cannot be seen by parishioners.

This drives me nuts. I want to bow/genuflect to the Real Presence of Christ in the tabernacle when I enter a church.

**But let us not forget about the holding of hands at the Our Father. **

This is a liturgical abuse according to Canon Law. When someone questions me about just folding my hands and praying I print it off and give it to them.

I’ll see if I can find the thread and post the link, OK?

THE TEN MOST COMMON LITURGICAL ABUSES And Why They're Wrong

Number 8

Dump the Sign of Peace altogether. Bunch of old touchie feelie prottie hippies came up with it anyway.

I'm not sure where it came from, but I won't miss it when it goes. It does seem as if Wayne Dyer came up with that one.

If they keep it at all (and I’d rather they didn’t, frankly, since whatever value it may have had has been overrun by pure triteness), it should be right where the pope is said to be proposing: at the Offertory, or even just before it. The justification for the Sign of Peace comes from Matthew 5:23-24. There, the text reads: “ So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25.”

But what about rasing the hands up during the Our Father? Is that a liturgital abuse or not?

The Solemn High Mass in the Ancient usage prescribes the sign of peace to be done immediately before Communion. This act is made by making an embrace and saying “Pax tecum” & “Et cum spiritu tuo”, and it proceeds in a hierarchical fashion from the priest (or bishop) to the deacon to the subdeacon and then to the attending clergy in descending order. It was never extended to members of the laity. It was also always omitted in Masses of the Dead and during the Sacred Triduum.

Perhaps the correct “compromise” would be to restore the Roman method of the Sign of Peace (aka the Pax) and the laity could be involved by the subdeacon extending the Pax to the first person in each front pew, from whence each individual would pass on the Pax to the next. Probably would be time-consuming. I guess I may be partial to the Roman method of embrace due to my Italian ancestry in which it is perfectly normal and respectful, even now in our Americanized family in 2008, for men to kiss and embrace each other.

Actually, the exchange of a kiss of peace is very ancient in the Church, at least in the East and hardly the work of proddie hippies. It died out in the Orthodox Church some centuries ago though we still see it in hierarchial liturgies and in concelebrated Liturgies. It is exchanged before the Creed.

As an outsider, I'm not sure if the verbal exchange is part of the Orthodox liturgy or only a custom among Ukrainian Catholics, but when the priests of the Ukrainian Catholic Church exchange the peace during the liturgy, one says to the other, "Christ is among us." The response is: "He is and ever shall be." Except during Eastertime, of course, when it is "Kristos voskres. Voistynu voskres." Sure, beats, "Hey, nice to see you, didn't even know you were behind me! Kid home from college yet? Plans for the summer? Or sticking close to home?" Etc etc et horrible cetera.

In the Carmelite Rite (O.Carm.) that was in use in our high school during the early 1960s, at a Solemn High Mass, during the first of the priest's prayers before Communion (which became the current prayer before the sign of peace), when the priest got to the "secundum voluntatem tuam" ("according to thy will"), he "kisses the Pall, then the lip of the Chalice, and continues the prayer, which having been concluded, he offers the peace to the deacon saying:

"Habete vinculum pacis et caritatis, ut apti sitis sacrosanctis mysteriis Domini nostri Jesu Christi."

"Have (or maintain) the bond of peace and charity, that you may be fit for the most sacred mysteries of Our Lord Jesus Christ."

Thanks for the link. I will print up a few of these and have my sons put them in their pockets.

The deck chairs would look much nicer over here, don'tcha think?

I believe it is — did that document talk about the Orans position? That is allowed for only the priest.

Our priests do the exact same thing.

Dump the Sign of Peace altogether. Bunch of old touchie feelie prottie hippies came up with it anyway...

...I couldn’t possibly agree more...it is extremely disheartening to work on my parish RCIA team, and have to listen to those who run the program comment on how the sign of peace should be done with the greatest look of joy on our faces...

If true, the most important, — really radical — would be the ad oriented posture and kneeling for the Eucharist, in my opinion. The use of Latin comes close third...

...the excessive irreverance in the posture of those in line to receive in my parish would be amusing if not so irritating...the casual dress, the bored looks, the sloppy Sign of the Cross...on those occasions when I attend a local TLM, we receive while kneeling on a hard marble rail...can you imagine some of those schlubs from the NO putting up with that?

A bow is the practice at my parish for those who’re serving the OF of the mass. It’s been a while since I was in the pews, so I don’t know what the people do. The Pax is introduced formally at the Sunday OF solemn mass, with the deacon turning around (yes, mass is celebrated ad orientem) and instructing the people “Offerte vibis pacem”. At other OF masses the Pax may be eliminated altogether (it’s optional in the OF, you know).

A different rubric applies in the EF, one that I believe far better communicates the nature of the peace being given: the celebrant (who represents Christ) gives it to the deacon, who gives it to the subdeacon, who ives it to the MC, who gives it to the thuriger, who gives it to the acolytes, etc. The Peace is seen clearly as something coming from the Lord, not from ourselves, and is communicated personally from one to the next. The form of the pax follows the rubric: giver and receiver embrace: the giver’s arms rest on the shoulders of the receiver, whose arms suppport the giver’s elbows. Each puts his head to the right. The greeting is Pax vobiscum, to which the reply is Et cum spiritu tuo.

In addition to the ad orientem posture, which should not be hard even for latin-phobic priests to adopt, the change that I believe would be easiest to adopt and most beneficial for all, is the return of the silent canon. The church knew what she was doing when she hedged priests round with restrictions of every sort to protect them from temptations to showmanship (and I have seen even devout and well-meaning priests make spectacles of themselves with out-loud vernacular eucharistic prayers). If during mass the High Priest can submerge his unforgettable personality in the form of wine and a pale white wafer, should the one who is alter Christus not strive for the same self-denial?

Peter’s bark is not going to sink.

The Novus Ordo is not Peter’s bark.

Ratzinger and Guéranger on the silent Canon

One of the most noticeable differences between the new rite of Mass and the old rite, especially for those who attend the old rite for the first time, is that many of the prayers we are accustomed to hearing aloud, are said silently - particularly the Canon of the Mass. In The Spirit of the Liturgy (1999), the then Cardinal Ratzinger said:

It really is not true that reciting the whole Eucharistic Prayer our loud and without interruptions is a prerequisite for the paricipation of everyone in this central act of the Mass.

He had suggested, in 1978, that the priest might say the first words of the various prayers out loud so that each person could, in his silent prayer, bring his personal prayer into the communal prayer and the communal prayer into his personal prayer. (He notes that this suggestion annoyed many liturgists.) He went on to say,

Anyone who has experienced a church united in the silent praying of the Canon will know what a really filled silence is. It is at once a loud and penetrating cry to God and a Spirit-filled act of prayer. Here everyone does pray the Canon together, albeit in a bond with the special task of the priestly ministry.

Guéranger in his On the Holy Mass, reported a historical anecdote related to the silent Canon.

In the seventeenth century the Jansenist heretics tried to introduce the abuse of reciting the Canon of the Mass aloud. Deceived by their tricks, Cardinal de Bissy, one of the successors of Bossuet, countenanced the admission of "R." in red type, into the Missal which he had composed for his Church, as the French Bishops of that day imagined they had a right to do. These "R." in red would naturally convey the idea that the people were supposed to respond the Amen thus marked. Now they can only respond to Prayers that can be heard. Hence would necessarily follow, at last, the recitation of the Canon aloud, by the Priest, which was the very thing aimed at by these Jansenists. But happily, public attention was quickly drawn to this dangerous innovation, loud complaints were raised against it, and Cardinal de Bissy himself withdrew the unfortunate step he had taken.

Guéranger's thought on this matter was not limited to the observance of liturgical law or the avoidance of being associated with something Jansenists desired. (Incidentally, it would be interesting to find out exactly why the Jansenists sought this innovation.) Commenting on the texts of the Mass, after the Sanctus, he wrote:

After these words, commences the Canon, that mysterious prayer in the midst of which heaven bows down to earth, and God descents unto us. The voice of the Priest is no longer heard: yea even at the Altar, all is silence. It was thus, says the Book of Wisdom, in the quiet of silence, and while the night was in the midst of her course, that the Almighty Word came down from his royal throne (Wisd. xviii. 14, 15). Let us await him in a like silence, and respectfully fix our eyes on what the Priest does in the holy place.

I have before suggested that liturgical reform in the present time would be more effectively accomplished by giving permission for traditional practices than by issuing condemnations of abuses. To be sure, the latter are important: even if they are widely ignored, orthodox priests at least have an authoritative source to appeal to. But if they were given permission to celebrate Mass saying the Canon silently, it would be an opportunity to introduce people in a striking way to the idea of genuine participation as something for which external activity is neither necessary nor sufficient.

The Lord left behind apostles, not a book — including missals.

There was a pattern a few years ago to make remarks on the Novus Ordo that would appear to be directed to the Catholic Church herself, and range from sarcastic to blasphemous, then, when called on it, dither and claim a misunderstood metaphor.

I hope it is not making a comeback.