All
parishes will have taken their Christmas liturgy seriously and prepared it
well. It struck me that of all the parishes I have been in over the years, that
Christmas and Easter Liturgies are always well planned and practiced but that
this is not the same for the week-to-week Sunday liturgies where, generally
speaking (readings and Proper being excepted) only what is being sung is
changed.
Liturgy,
we were told, should be “Incarnational” since it is God coming down to earth to
be intimately united to men. On the basis of “Incarnational liturgy” I know
several priests who distribute Holy Communion from outside the sanctuary. This
is not given in the rubrics and, since it is illicit for the celebrant to leave
the sanctuary during the sign of peace (Redemptionis Sacramentum#72) should probably
be regarded as illicit -especially since the General Instruction (#295) states
that “the sanctuary is the place....where the priest, deacon and other
ministers exercise their offices”. Yet “Incarnational liturgy” still seems to
rule. Huge outdoor Masses have created a problem here (as they have for
concelebrating priests who are often so far away from the altar that to say
“This [here] is my Body” makes little sense; the best they can say is “That
[over there] is My Body”).
I
suggest that the idea of “Incarnational liturgy” predisposes to liturgical error,
since while the Incarnation is God’s initiative it was not the final end (goal)
of God. Rather the Incarnation -though beyond comprehension and of supreme
wonder- has as its goal the raising of man up to God and to heaven. Liturgy
must reflect this transcendent goal, and not take the Incarnation as its
stopping point. As Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum
Concilium reminds us, the Church is “present
in this world and yet not at home in it” (SC#2); that in Her liturgy the
Church’s members “take part in a
foretaste of that heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the holy city of
Jerusalem toward which we journey as pilgrims, where...we sing a hymn to the
Lord's glory with all the warriors of the heavenly army” (SC#8). The
question is how to achieve the sense of transcendence in the liturgy.
A
solid ars celebrandi reverence and
care in speech, movement and ritual acts- is one part of the answer. But we must
look to Sacrosantcum Concilium too, for
it is not by use of hymns (which are music added
to the Liturgy of the Mass) that this can be achieved; rather, it is by singing
the Mass texts themselves: the Introit;
Gloria, Kyrie, Credo, Offertorium, Sanctus, Mysterium Fidei, Pater Noster,
Angnus Dei and Communion antiphon, as well as the dialogues (such as the
Preface). Vatican II had something to say about this, as did the
Congregation for Divine Worship very soon after the Council in Musicam Sacram (1967).
The
Council decreed that, “The musical
tradition of the universal Church is a treasure of inestimable value, greater
even than that of any other art. The main reason for this pre-eminence is that,
as sacred song [read music?] united to the words, it forms a necessary or integral
part of the solemn liturgy” (SC#112) -note that the tradition of the Church
to which the Council is referring can only be Gregorian Chant and sacred
polyphony, its only musical heritage. Indeed, “The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the
Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of
place in liturgical services” (SC#116). The Council thus stated that this “treasure of sacred music is to be preserved
and fostered with great care. Choirs must be diligently promoted, especially in
cathedral churches; but bishops and other pastors of souls must be at pains to
ensure that, whenever the sacred action is to be celebrated with song, the
whole body of the faithful may be able to contribute that active participation
which is rightly theirs...” (SC#114). The import of this is that the people
should be able to sing the chant, supported by but not replaced by, a choir.
Is
anything said in Sacrosanctum Concilium
on hymns? Yes, but in the context of the Divine Office, not the Mass. Certainly
“To promote active participation, the
people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses,
psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily
attitudes” (SC#30) but Musicam Sacram
clarifies this text in the following words (emphasis added):
#28.
“The distinction between solemn, sung and read Mass, sanctioned by the
Instruction of 1958 (n.3), is retained, according to the
traditional liturgical laws at present in force. However, for the sung Mass
(Missa cantata), different degrees of participation are put forward here for
reasons of pastoral usefulness, so that it may become easier to make the
celebration of Mass more beautiful by singing, according to the capabilities of
each congregation. These degrees are so
arranged that the first may be used even by itself, but the second and third,
wholly or partially, may never be used without the first. In this way the
faithful will be continually led towards an ever greater participation in the
singing.
#29. The following belong to the
first degree:
(a) In the entrance rites: the
greeting of the priest together with the reply of the people; the prayer.
(b) In the Liturgy of the Word: the
acclamations at the Gospel.
(c) In the Eucharistic Liturgy: the
prayer over the offerings; the preface with its dialogue and the Sanctus; the
final doxology of the Canon, the Lord's prayer with its introduction and
embolism; the Pax Domini; the prayer after the Communion; the formulas of
dismissal.
#30. The following belong to the
second degree:
(a) the Kyrie, Gloria and Agnus Dei;
(b) the Creed;
(c) the prayer of the faithful.
31. The following belong to the
third degree:
(a) the songs at the Entrance and
Communion processions;
(b) the songs after the Lesson or
Epistle;
(c) the Alleluia before the Gospel;
(d) the song at the Offertory;
(e) the readings of Sacred Scripture,
unless it seems more suitable to proclaim them without singing.
Note
that the second or third degrees cannot
be used either in part or wholly unless those of the first degree are sung.
This means that unless the parish sings the dialogues between priest and
people, as well as the Opening Prayer and Pater Noster, nothing else should be sung. In most parishes a sung Mass in the Ordinary
Form generally means the Kyrie, Gloria and Sanctus with hymns at the Entrance,
Offertory, Communion and (incongruently since no song is envisaged here) the
Recessional, yet none of these are of the
First Degree. Indeed hymns are only
added as a kind of occasional measure as clarified by Musicam Sacram: “some other
song can also, on occasions, be sung at the beginning, at the Offertory, at the
Communion and at the end of Mass.” (MS#36). Thus the so-called ‘sung Mass’ in
most parishes is out of synch with the decrees of the Council.
In
conclusion, to make Mass more of an experience of the transcendent (other-worldliness)
we need to undertake the restoration of
Gregorian Chant and Latin so as to be faithful to the Council and its
decrees that the Church’s “use of the
Latin language be preserved in the Latin rites”; that traditional chant as a
“treasure of inestimable value” be “preserved and fostered”, with “Gregorian chant having pride of place”
and “the people able to say or sing in
Latin those parts of the Mass that pertain to them”.
I
also look for the return of the versus
apsidem orientation (to show the Mass is offered to God rather
than performed for the people); the
reception of Communion kneeling (to stand is to express an equality which does
not exist) and on the tongue (to end the taking of the consecrated into un-consecrated
hands) and the silent Canon so as to provide sacred silence rather than a pause,
thereby synchronising the celebration of Mass with the words of scripture: “God is in his holy temple; let all the earth
be silent before Him” cf. Hab.2v20. Nothing
on earth brings God into His holy temple as does the Holy Sacrifice of the
Mass.
Thank you, Father, for speaking the truth in the face of general compulsion to deny same. What diocese is implementing these liturgical laws? None that I know of. The degradation of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has led to the loss of Faith and morals of most Catholics. And still, the destroyers of the liturgy (and hence, the Faith) continue with impunity.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the comment, Lynda.
DeleteSadly there seems to be few who want to follow what the Council actually decreed; why I do not know. I wonder if they are too embarrassed or ashamed to say that they took it all too far, or are afraid of having to say to the people "we got it wrong". Other than these options there seems little left other than "We think we did the right thing". Yet the number of those to whom Holy Mass and Confession are important, and of those willing to trust the Church's moral teaching, are diminishing rapidly. As I have said before, it is a strange renewal that brings decline rather than growth. Only by being humble enough to follow the simple laws that govern the liturgy are we going to show that we respect the authority of the Church -and if we can't follow the simple rules in worship, how can we expect anyone to follow the difficult laws of the moral life?
God Bless you and yours.
Great article, thanks-should be promulgated.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the comment.
DeleteYes, perhaps re-promulgating Musicam sacram (or reminding the Bishops it is there) would be very useful.
God bless you and yours.
Well said, Father. All the best for the new year.
ReplyDelete'This is not given in the rubrics and, since it is illicit for the celebrant to leave the sanctuary during the sign of peace (Redemptionis Sacramentum#72)'. the Mass I attend has the celebrant leaving the 'sanctuary' to paw everyone in the front pew at the sign of peace. The sacred, to my ignorant eyes, seems to be mocked because of 'reasons of pastoral usefulness', otherwise known as, the Bishop can't stand all that ceremony and sanctuary. The mass is valid, in that Our humbled Lord deigns to offer Himself to us even in the most casual and appalling 'appeals'; but why is liturgical laziness considered some neo-Catholic virtue? Liturgical abuse is the new virtue.
Thank you for the comment.
DeleteI think leaving the sanctuary is a liturgical error. Certainly we are to be friendly, affirming and caring in our pastoral work, but in our liturgy we act 'in persona Christ' and lead the people in worship of Almighty God, united to all the angels and saints in the heavenly glory of the Father. Leaving the sanctuary demonstrates that the primary focus of the celebrant is on the people, not God: "What will affirm the people? What will they enjoy? How will they feel? What they think?" The development of priests leaving the sanctuary is, in my estimation, a clear demonstration that facing the people for Mass shifts the focus from God to man, at which point liturgy misses the mark.
I think you are right about liturgical abuse being the new virtue -abiding by the rubrics is often seen as rule-bound and clericalistic, with dismissal of rubrics a demonstration of the freedom we have in Christ and a heart focused on the people. Apparently we cannot be loyal to the Church and loving/affirming of the people at the same time...
God bless you and yours.
It's a great shame that priests and bishops don't follow the rules. And then they wonder why so few of the laity observe the restored discipline of no meat on Friday. its time they renewed their Faith.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the comment.
Delete'Rules' require us to exercise humility and obedience in the liturgy, and if we can't control these things there, how can we believe we are achieving control over them in any other aspect of life?
God bless you and yours.