In 1965 two liturgical texts appeared and were imposed by authority. It was ordered that they be incorporated in the Roman Missal and faithfully observed "ab omnibus".
The first was an Ordo Missae. It was a very lightly revised Order, which nobody could criticise as belonging to a hermeneutic of total rupture. Its 'organic' changes were, mainly, the elimination of the psalm Judica (which was in any case not invariably said in the earlier rite) and of the Last Gospel (which also already had its rubrical elements of instability). The Doxology of the Canon and the Libera nos were to be said or sung aloud. Corpus Christ became the form at the administration of Holy Communion to the people - a rite which now became integral to the Order of Mass instead of an occasional appendage. Optionally, the Liturgy of the Word could be done at the sedilia.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre himself contentedly used this revised Order of Mass for some years, and only reverted to the books of 1962 in the mid 1970s when it had become clear what a disastrous rupture had been introduced. Indeed, there was a decade or so during which priestly celebrants at Econe differed slightly among themselves as to how they offered the Old Mass.
I have two suggestions to adumbrate. (1) A few weeks later, Rome issued an Order for Concelebration to go with the revised Order of Mass. That rite of Concelebration presupposed the substantially unspoiled Old Rite of Mass. The concelebrants were to wear all their vestments - including the maniple. They were recommended to hold a paten under the Host after receiving it. But I find most interesting the features of this rite which were forgotten when the Novus Ordo, and its associated rite of Concelebration, were authorised. The 1965 rubrics were very concerned about the numbers of concelebrants (Bad Marini's book gives background to this particular worry). The bishop was ordered to keep an eye on this. The controlling principle was to be that all the concelebrants be able to stand around the altar, even though each one might not be able directly to touch it. This would exclude the monster concelebrations which have become fashionable, and which are so profoundly unedifying.
The rite also repeated the Conciliar provision that every priest retains an almost absolute right to say his own separate Mass.
It has, I know, been suggested that this Rite of Concelebration is still legally available to accompany the Traditional Mass. You need to imagine a procession of priests, not in 'concelebration chasubles' but respectable chasubles ... and maniples ... and birettas ... processing up the Church, perhaps holding in their hands before their breasts the patens they will be using. Vessels for the purification of their fingers will need to be provided ...
It seems to me that we traditionalists ought to be open to proper 'organic' development of the Liturgy. At the moment, in the RC Church, traditionalists are naturally so wounded by the traumata of the last 40 years that they need the stability of the 1962 rite in its unmuckedaboutwith state. That is natural. But in principle, Traditionalism is damaged by being turned into Fundamentalism. Liturgy has always - organically - developed, and so, paradoxically, this mutability is part of Tradition. Ultimately, we are all going to have to free ourselves from unnecessary hangups and a fetich for the rite of some particular year. After all, what is so splendid about 1962? In my view, the usages in place before the Pontificate of Pius XII began would be distinctly preferable to the maimed usages of 1962.
And in my opinion, a 'traditional' mindset would restrict Concelebration to the Chrism Mass, Ordinations, the Pontifical celebration of the Easter Vigil, and perhaps when the Bishop comes on Visitation; in other words, occasions when the summus sacerdos offers the August Sacrifice in intimate union with his presbyterium and thus manifests the unity of of the sacerdotium. And it would insist on Concelebration being done as described in 1965. And make clear that daily celebration is the norm for each priest each day.
And (2) ... much as I love High Mass, I think there could be a place for Mass Sung by a Priest and a Deacon. Who would lose anything if the rubrics for such a liturgy were devised and authorised?
If people comment angrily to the effect that Concelebration is in itself objectionable and unCatholic, I shall repeat ... yet again ... one or both of my two old series about the teaching and practice of the popes from Innocent III (d 1216) to Benedict XIV (d 1758). You have been warned!
25 August 2016
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
I agree, we can tend towards '62-Or-Bust, but maybe as a way of keeping our noses clean?
Your point about a form of Mass with only priest and deacon is interesting, it allows making use of a permanent deacon without the finding of a third minister, when finding one is hard enough!
Not having access to the "65 text where I am, did each priest hold their own at the consecration or take from a common Patten?
I wonder if you have ever been to Fontgombault abbey in the dept. of Indres, France. This Benedictine house has never adopted the 1969/70 books but sticks to 1965 for the conventual mass, and 1962 for the private masses. Two years ago I was there during Holy Week and witnessed a concelebrated mass for Holy Thursday (if I remember correctly). I returned there for two weeks in the beginning of this month of August, 2016; conventual mass on greater feast days was High Mass with deacon and subdeacon, whereas on lesser feasts, ferial days and Requiems the priest was only assisted by a deacon.
I can warmly recommend the place: the monks sing beautifully, and the meals are excellent and homegrown!
I couldn't agree more. I grew up as altar boy under the 1962 Mass, but my recollection is that--at least in the areas that I was familiar with--the 1965 Mass was quite popular among the faithful. People seemed to love the Missa Recitata and were quite willing to learn the Latin. Even now, when I attend the Traditional Mass in the 1962 form, I can hear around me that there are people who come from the same experience, who want to say the responses, sing the Gloria, Credo, etc. And there is no question here of a confusion of roles as between the priest and the people.
Now, obviously, there's sometimes a lack of proper understanding, re why certain parts are properly for the deacons or acolytes rather than the people. However, it seems clear that there are parts that properly should (or could with profit) be said/sung by the Order of the Laos--the Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei. I don't doubt that with an absolute modicum of training the people could learn to sing parts of the Proper when no choir is present--I recall that during that brief transitional phase from 1965-1970 we did do that. Maybe its my modern sensibility, but it seems to me that it would be worth the effort and fully in the spirit of the Tradition.
Can you really not say the '62 with just priest and one deacon? I've looked at the rubrics . . . I guess it doesn't really account for that. That tweak would certainly be useful to accommodate modern staffing realities.
I agree totally about the ‘monster’ concelebrations. They are unedifying and should be banned. We have seen how even some concelebrants seem unaware of what they are participating in – given the number of cameras frequently in evidence.
Then the sight of EMHCs distributing Holy Communion while a plethora of concelebrating clerics remains seated is more than unedifying – it is scandalous.
What is this about each priest having his own paten? At the 1965 concelebration, did each priest consecrate his own host?
mark wauck, I have noticed the same thing about congregational responses when I attend TLMs in my area. I am a member of a Byzantine-Ruthenian parish, and I greatly admire the tradition of the Catholics and Orthodox in and from Transcarpathia in the preservation of congregational singing. We sing the entire Divine Liturgy, and the distinction between priest and laity is always scrupulously observed. Since our parish has been blessed with the ordination of two deacons this year, the proper roles of priest, deacon and laity are also admirably on display. In fact, I think having had a deacon serving at every Divine Liturgy for the last few months has really helped me appreciate the liturgical role of the deacon more. Most TLMs I have ever attended have been Low Masses, so actually seeing a Roman deacon "in action" has been kind of rare. And in the Novus Ordo, I'm not so sure what the deacon is supposed to do since it seems to be quite different at virtually every parish I've attended, ranging from merely standing beside the priest to performing quite a bit of ceremonial and delivering the homily.
You are spot on on both counts! Further, some church re-organisations have the aim of creating space for these jamborees and the Blessed Sacrament relegated to who knows where quite often.
Worship spaces, but not altars.. I thought the clergy were mandated to Celebrate their individual Masses daily - one reason for side altars.
I see no reason why a qualified layman cannot serve as a straw subdeacon. Giving the faithful a High Mass if you can find a deacon is a very good reason. Rome has never forbidden it in the PCED era. Yes, it hss implied it is banned, since it says one instituted to acolyte (or at least candidacy or a seminarian at the very least) may serve, but I think they are well aware that places have used laymen as subdeacon. It was the case before the council too. I also find that Mass with two ministers to be rather unbalanced.
I still would argue re: concelebration that the norm for the West is ceremonial assistance. Were the PP to concelebrate, you lose one of the ministers for whatever form the bishop uses (Pontifical Low Mass or Mass at the faldstool, if the church is small, or throne, which can be done without deacons of honor, though better to do it at the faldstool), and you run into the problem of assigning the priest the deacon’s parts while at the same time the priest is supposed to be concelebrating as a priest. This is always a problem in the Novus Ordo.
I sing at a Missa Cantata (once a month, shortly to be twice a month) where there is a permanent deacon. He is in the sanctuary in choir dress and biretta and sings the epistle facing the altar but not at it. The celebrant sings the gospel from the altar missal in the usual way. The deacon does not assist the priest at the altar and only assumes the diaconal stole when he receives Communion.
I assume this is pukka.
Interestingly, Pius XII had already permitted in 1957 the revised Holy Week rites to be somewhat solemnly celebrated with only a priest and a deacon (i.e. without a subdeacon): "Ubi actiones liturgicae hebdomadae sanctae ritu simplici peraguntur, si praesto sit alter sacerdos vel saltem diaconus, nil impedit quominus hic, diaconali more indutus, cantet Evangelium, quando occurrit, aut historiam passionis (ipsi celebranti parte Christi reservata), vel praeconium paschale, lectiones quoque et invitationes ut sunt Flectamus genua et Levate, aut Benedicantur Domino vel Ite, Missa est; uno verbo partes diaconi congrue absolvat" (AAS 49 , p. 92).
An easy way to check a 1965 Missal is to install the FSSP iMass app. 1965 can be selected from a drop down menu underneath the Mass text (they call it 1960-1967 but it seems to be the 1965 Rite with the Communion of the Faithful and no Last Gospel and Leonine prayers).
I think there was some provision that a concelebrating priest would get a full stipend despite only saying a few words of the New Mass. What I mean is that unfortunately some priests might like the idea of full pay for less work.
I think keeping the Missal static for now is best (although some priests do incorporate pre-62/55 elements or like ICKSP use a pre 55 Missal). Far too many Catholics have almost no access to the Mass of All Time. Summorum Pontificum is ignored by too many bishops who surely hope that Pope Francis, perhaps followed by a Pope Tagle will mean the TLM will shrivel back to the chapels of Traditional priestly societies. When most Catholics can access the Mass of All Time without long journeys, and don't have to worry that it could be ended on the whim of a new Parish Priest/Administrator, then this or that adjustment could be accepted. However, many might be wary as changes throughout the fifties led to what was effectively the suppression of the TLM for most lay people.
Thank you Fr, the 'Transitional Missal' is often forgotten.
The issue I have with concelebration, which we frequently see in our parish's weekend and daily Masses, is this: if there are enough priests to concelebrate, then they'd do better to lay on an extra Mass so more laity can attend.
When did it become a rule in England that daily mass must be at 10 am, to prevent students and working people from attending? And why can't we have a 7 am Sunday Mass?
The 1962 Missal is not 'un-muckedaboutwith'............ Bugnini had exercised his malign influence for several years before then. To find a genuinely traditional Missal one has to look for one published prior to 1955.
Two clergy ran The Holy Name, Manchester as a proto-oratory, they Celebrated and early morning Mass and an even Mass - attendance at both being sound, including those on way to work. A further aspect was that they also Celebrated a TLM Sunday afternoon - also well attended including those from the student body. The latter were exposed to the full scope of Catholicism. Alas they had to move to St. Chad's Manchester and the student body have only a Jesuit aspect to inform them.
Salford Diocese claims lack of clergy for an wholesale reconstruction: my immediate church is earmarked for closure - yet adjacent to the same road and a short bus ride, I have attended Mass at another church with two clergy officiating, worse still an EMHC distributes Communion. There may exist a reason for this anomalous situation, but I cannot discern the same.
Even though still very similar to 1962, 1965 is showing a fundamentally different concept of the priestly Action during mass. Whereas in the versions before 1965 the priest is saying the entire mass by himself (except the parts sung by the subdeacon and deacon in case of a high mass), and repeating all parts which occasionally are sung by the only attending - but not acting - people or the schola, like the Introit, the Graduale etc, in the 1965 version priest and attending people together are forming one "People of god". This is inline with and an organic further development of the prviously newly introduced forms like the dialogue mass which at least in Germany had become the standard form of the low mass already on the 1950s, as can be seen clearly when reading carefully the rubrics given in the Hymnals of this period. In the 1962 form as well as earlier forms, it easily can happen that the people or the schola have ended the Kyrie already when the priest is still reading the Introit, especially in case of short settings like the xth mass used for Marian feasts. Thus, from a musical and - yes - pastoral Point of view, 1965 is much preferable to any earlier version as far as this matter is concerned. This also can be said reg. the Last Gospel, moreover, as with the reforms of 1955 it lost its function of a possibility to read the proper Sunday Gospel in case the Sunday was superseeded by a feast.
By the way, I wonder in this concern, whether it really is necessary to wait quietly during the Last Gospel, and whether this was the usual custom already in the time prior 1965. Is there any elder one out there reading These lines who still can remember what was the customs during that days in case of a Sung Mass? Did you wait quietly until the end of the last Gospel and then started a last hymn - if there was any - , or did the organ at least already start to play the introduction to the last hymn during the last gospel? Please let me know!
To which ICKSP apostolate do refer re: Use of pre '55 missal?
Were I in your parish, I would push for him to be clerical MC, which means singing the lesson and doing most of the tasks a deacon can do, and this only if no one can be found to be subdeacon, presuming the priest isn’t comfortable with an older altar boy.
"In my view, the usages in place before the Pontificate of Pius XII began would be distinctly preferable to the maimed usages of 1962."
There are more than a few of us out here who would agree with that, Father.
Regarding Ansgarus's question about the Last Gospel, I am pretty sure I can remember either the choir singing a motet (usually Marian) as soon as the blessing was given, or a final hymn starting. Only the clergy and servers took any notice of what was happening at the altar. What I cannot remember is where the Domine salvum fac fitted into all this.
Technically at High Mass, the Last Gospel is secreto. In modern usage, the prayers for the monarch usually come (possibly before) after the Marian anthem, if that isn’t sung during the Last Gospel.
It isn’t entirely pre–1955, not since there was some interference ca. 2003. But, they did the old Candlemas blessing at the seminary this year, they say the Credo on feasts of doctors, they are obliged to say the prayer pro Papa (I know these prayers rotated, but a 1962 Ordo doesn’t have this listed at all), they always double the readings at High Mass, and a few apostolates have folded chasubles… The IBP this year, imagine that, was actually more pre–1955 than the ICRSS.
Thank you very much for sharing your memories, Adrian. Starting the final (usually certainly Marian) hymn directly after the blessing very much makes sense, as at this point mass is finished - the Last Gospel historically is an addition and belongs more to the priest then to the people, like the introductory prayers in the beginning which are said parallel to the sung introit and the subsequent Kyrie. Moreover, it fits with the rubrical instruction that at high resp. sung masses, the last Gospel is to be said quietly. This avoids an interference with music. In the low mass, it is said loud, maybe because there is no music with which it could interfere? Anyway, your comment Adrian, is very interesting. This means, that the custom to wait quietly until the priest finished the (even in low masses often quietly spoken) last Gospel could be a rather new practise of congregations which started the TLM newly after an interruption, e.g. without a "living tradition".
One more question in this concern: when were the people going to the communion rail, and when usually started the singing of the communio? Was the communio sung during the priestly communion, before the "Ecce.."? And did the priest also "in the old days" say the "domine non sum dignus" once again three times together with the people (like it is the practise in all traditional masses I have atended nowadays, but without a rubrical request as far as I know)?
Doesn't the "silent Last Gospel" only date from the 1958-62 reforms? Before that it would not always have been S. John, but the proper Last Gospel of a commemorated day?
Good question. I’ll ask a friend. But, except for Lent prior to St. Pius X, it’s stil St. John on 90% of days. Christmas and (usually green) Sundays which coincide with a feast are about it after 1910 for proper Last Gospels.
In one parish near me, they approach the rail during the priest’s Communion. I know of a parish in London which sings the verse at the ablutions, but most follow the 1957 rubrics to sing it as Communion begins. At least some ICRSS apostolates reserve the “Domine, non sum dignus” to the celebrant alone, even though most places do as you describe; technically, the ICRSS is correct, but…
No-one ever approached the rail until after the Ecce Agnus Dei. From 1967, when the Ecce preceded the priest's Communion (as in the Novus Ordo) a bell was rung to signal the people to approach the rail. That is probably why some people nowadays interpret the three bells at the priest's Domine non sum dignus (wrongly) as a signal to come forward.
In my parish 1965 coincided with a complete rebuilding and reorientation (from west to north) of the historically important church - it's amazing what they were allowed to do to a listed building in those days - to reflect the new minimalist style. By the time it re-opened in 1966 the choir had been disbanded and the principal Sunday Mass was a 4-hymn sandwich, with Latin and chant effectively banned and the old vestments thrown out.
The 1967 changes resulted in what was to all intents and purposes the new Mass. No doubt some parishes were more conservative but my memories of the period 1964-1967 as a teenager are of a revolution imposed from above. Our PP said 'Vatican Two means the Church has to get "with it"'. He even half expected that he might be allowed to marry!
Even now, when I attend the Traditional Mass in the 1962 form, I can hear around me that there are people who come from the same experience, who want to say the responses, sing the Gloria, Credo, etc.
As you probably know, however, this is one of those traditionalist "third rails" in some TLM communities - esp. in the Anglo-American world, where the residue of Irish piety remains strong in some places - and indeed among some well known trad bloggers. There is one long-standing TLM near me where attempts to even whisper a response will elicit a basilisk stare or two.
Some of the reaction is visceral: dialogue of any sort is associated with the Pauline Missal, and therefore anathema. Some concerns are more plausible: the distraction of a poorly formed congregation making a warbled mess of a response (something I have witnessed), or a simple craving for prayerfui silence. This may be the sort of thing that just has to be sorted out by each community for itself, and when in Rome, you end up doing as the Romans do.
Which also points to the larger question of organic development. As Fr H and others here have already noted, there's already some notable divergence between TLM communities, especially in making use of some pre-1962 elements. Not for naught have some spoken of a "Rite of Econe" and a "Rite of Gricigliano." Perhaps we will see such variations crystallize more clearly in coming decades. I do not think this would be a bad thing per se. But they will be very minor variations, given the need to keep the peace. There is, indeed, a great deal of trauma out there, and one hopes that as tradition flowers in on a larger stage, the "fundamentalist" impulse will start to recede to being less of a danger.
The introduction of the "Dialogue Mass" broke one's concentration on the text of the prayers within the Missal. Those prayers, although by the Celebrant, required one to reflect upon our individual inadequacy and frailty in the face of that which was to take place. The recitations by the congregation were also disjointed and lacking sycronisation, servers' responses could also fail in that latter respect.. The NOM does not express those essential elements of prayer and certainly does not provide the necessary space for prayer..
Excellent an article.
To be fair, there's very little of the priest's part nor the deacon's said audibly in the byzantine rite to get confused. In the roman rite, there's a lot of disagreement about what is clerical and what is for the laity. Things like the introit and the gradual for instance
I know this is quite an old article, but do you have any further reading on where it mentions Mgr. Lefebvre celebrating the Mass of 1965? This is addressed to both Father and commenters generally.
Post a Comment