:: Running from the Thought Police ::

:: Monday, February 28, 2005 ::

Stirring The Liturgical Anthill

NOTE: Sorry - I went back to change a grammar error this morning and accidentally hit "Save as Draft" rather than "Publish Post." I'll be more careful in the future.

Matthew at Shrine of the Holy Whapping has, all by himself, proposed a revision of the Order of the Mass. Reguardless of the fact that he did not wait for the third edition of the Novus Ordo missal to be finalized and published (which, from what I've seen of it, may already be the step backwards in ecumenicalism and clarity of language he desires), I have a list of criticisms of his proposed order. I will admit that this response is on short notice and that I have not had a chance to spend gobs of time in the Newman Foundation's library and read up on the issue to the extent that Matthew has. Before I start, it should be noted that, in comparing this proposed order with the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, only Chapter II, section III of that document, The Parts of the Mass, is dealt with fully. For those wishing to actually read the Tridentine Mass for themselves and compare it to Matthew's text, a side-by-side Latin and English order is here.

Critique of the Ordo Karolingianus

On the title: I'll admit my Latin is a bit rusty. Even so, shouldn't it be, properly, the Ordo Carolus or some inflection thereof? This, though, may cause confusion with Carolus Magnus, the first Holy Roman Emperor, so perhaps Ordo Johannes Paulus Secundus or somesuch would be more appropriate.

Before proceeding further, it should be noted that a new order of mass is typically promulgated in Latin before being translated into the various vernacular languages. Since the Ordo Karolingianus was created without apparent recourse to the various forms of the Roman Missal in their original language, it was effectively created de novo.

General Rubrics

On "Of the Bows": "x is when y" isn't gramatically correct.

On "Of Concelebrants": Beyond the prohibition against concelebrants performing "servile tasks," this is merely a summary of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops document Guidelines for the Concelebration of the Eucharist. Would it be more profitable to include this (or a direct reference to it) in the text, as it covers more eventualities? Also, on the prohibition, it seems unneccessary to require an instituted Acolyte for "servile tasks" for situations where, for instance, the entire congregation is made up of ordained ministers.

On "Of the Other Sacred Ministers": I would agree with recent tradition that the presiding priest should, whenever possible, deliver the Homily himself. Separating the thanksgiving of the Word of God and the Lamb of God seems, to me, does nothing but disrupt the unity of the celebration. A "Gospeler" should thus be avoided whenever possible.

The Fore-Mass
(Introductory Rites)

Before getting nit-picky on this section, Matthew deserves credit for swapping out all the "thous" for "yous" in his proposed order.

On the inclusion of Psalm 42: Matthew leaves no footnotes to explain why he has added the Psalm back to the order of mass. While I, unfortunately, am no schollar of church history, I would hazard to guess that no references to this section of the Tridentine Mass could be found prior to the Middle Ages. I would like to see Matthew's rationale for its re-inclusion.

Also, Matthew doesn't use the New American Bible as the source for his text. The NAB is the translation currently approved for liturgical use in the United States. This, I believe, is an instance where a return to the source text (and direct translations thereof) would be more faithful to sacred scripture than to filter scripture through an additional language.

On the Inclusion of the Gloria Patri (Glory Be): First, as all other mentions of Jesus Christ in the mass merit only a head bow, why should the Gloria Patri? Secondly, this part of the mass seems to be redundant the Gloria, which is why I am not bothered by its removal. A better case needs to be made for its inclusion.

Salutation

In keeping with the Novus Ordo mass, this section has been moved relative to the Tridentine mass to preceed the Penitential Rite.

On the Translation of "Et cum spiritu tuo": Whether or not this will continue to be translated idiomatically as "And also with you" or literaly as "And with your spirit" in the next English revision of the Novus Ordo is currently up in the air. As such, I am open to both, especially since this proposed order of mass is attempting to cling close to the Tridentine mass.

Confiteor
(Penitential Rite)

This is the point at which everyone admits they are lowly sinners and go begging all and sundry for forgiveness. Kneeling as it is done in a pew has too much pius dignity attatched to it - I much prefer the "stand up and admit it" attitude encouraged by the currently indicated posture. This, though, is a matter of my opinion.

On the Inclusion of Michael the Archangel, et. al.: This is redundant with the subsequent phrase, "and all the angels and saints," as well as the litany of the Saints. The case for the reintroduction of this minor litany needs further justification.

On the Maintainence of the Second Instance of "Brothers and Sisters": I actually agree with this one, especially since the most recent English draft edition of the Roman Missal omits it.

Aufer a Nobis and Oramus Te

The first seems redundant to the end of the Penitential Rite, so a case for its inclusion must be made.

As most modern parishes do not include relics in their altar, and as the Priest's sins have just been forgiven in the Penitential Rite, the Oramus Te is also redundant. Again, explaination needs to be given for its inclusion.

On the Location of the Priest: Many newer and newly renovated churches make use of a basilica-style floor layout with the altar at the center. Other new, smaller chapels are simply an oval of chairs surrounding the altar, ambo, and presider's chair. While both have distinct areas for each of the three areas, such setups do not have a real "right" or "left." Perhaps this type of micromanaging is best left to the national conferences or to the Ordinaries.

The Kyrie Eleison

On the Inclusion of the Kyrie in the Penitential Rite: Just because something is old doesn't make it superior (unless, of course, it was instituted by Christ and practiced by his disciples, but that's a different case). Conversely, just because something is relatively new doesn't make it inferior. Why should innovations such as the Oramus Te be left to stand while the third setting for the Penitential Rite (which involves the Kyrie) is demeaned as "unhistorical"?

The Gloria

On Language: "You Who..." is archaic. Even the form of the Gloria found in the current English draft of the missal removes the word "who."

The Liturgy of the Word

The Lessons: Prophesy, Responsory, and Epistle
(First Reading, Responsorial Psalm, and Second Reading)

On the Inclusion of Lay Ministers in Reading Scripture: This is a practice that Matthew keeps and I applaud him for it.

The Gospel

On the Deacon Bowing or Kneeling While Recieving the Priest's Blessing: While, for a healthy person, a profound bow (from the waist) is not a problem, I can see where some older Deacons might have difficulties maintaining such a position. For those who cannot make a profound bow, an allowance for kneeling should probably be made. However, those who can make a profound bow probably should.

The Homily

On the Use of the Biretta: Matthew states that the "Biretta is a sign of authority." A sign to whom? To my pious, late grandmother, possibly. To my other grandparents and parents, an outside chance. To myself and most other Catholics of my generation, not at all. I didn't even know that it existed until a couple years ago, and have never seen one in person. Suddenly donning the things again during mass will not have the intended effect; instead, it'll merely look as if the Church is intentionally regressing. What's next, the maniple?

The Nicene Creed

On Language: The word "consubstantial" is archaic. I've had some Latin so I can puzzle it out, many/most aren't so lucky. A more modern form is needed for a creed so important to our faith.

On Ecumenicalism: We've finally gotten many of the mainline Protestant faiths to use the same version of the Creed and other commmon prayers. Before we change those things that we have in common with our Protestant brethren we must look long and hard to make sure that such changes are truely necessitated by lingual shifts and better fidelity to the original languages. If such changes are deemed necessary, expert representatives from those other denominations (with very good credentials) should be invited to develop the new translations along strict guidelines set down by the Vatican. Not only would this preserve and intensify the current level of ecumenicalism, but would also begin to re-habituate those denominations to the leadership of Rome in such matters.

On Kneeling vs. Bowing: In what I can find (though I don't have direct access to the missal itself) the congregation is only directed to bow, with no designation as to what type of bow is to be used. All the congregations I've been to use a simple head bow during the Nicene Creed. I fail to see how a head bow is awkward. Matthew's dismissal of a profound bow as awkward also needs some expaination, as a dismissal based on such a declaration seems arbitrary.

The Litany of Intercession
(The Prayer of the Faithful - formerly the General Intercessions)

As Matthew doesn't allow for intercession requests from the congregation, this order removes the non-general pettitions many Catholics try to insert here, including the wholly inappropriate "special intention."

On Language: As an example, "entreat" is archaic, as is "enkindle". While a different phrasing may be used to change the litany from a list of things the congregation prays for to a litany of requests of God, the language as used in the proposed order needs massive revision to be understood by most people.

The Liturgy of the Eucharist

The Offerotory
(The Preparation of the Gifts and Prayer over the Offerings)

On the Inclusion of the Veil: The use of the veil over the chalice is a holdover from the Tridentine mass and its modern use is exceedingly rare. The symbolism involved is poor at best, and the veil itself serves no practical purpose. Its inclusion for the sheer sake of continuing Roman tradition needs to be better argued.

On Language: While not as mind-bendingly archaic as the Intercessions, these too do not use clear, modern English.

On the Symbolism of Mixing Water and Wine: Ancient custom was to mix water with wine - in fact, considerably more water was used back then than is used in our mass today, as modern wines aren't nearly as concentrated. To this was added the symbolism of Christ's human and divine natures. While the symbolism's nice, it was added at a later date and shouldn't be a nominal focus of the prayer.

The Sanctus

On the Usage of "Lord God of Hosts": This turn of phrase is odd to the modern ear. Perhaps the ICEL draft version's "Holy, Holy, Holy Lord, God of mighty hosts," would be more appropriate to a modern setting.

The Roman Cannon
(The Eucharistic Prayer)

I'm going to largely leave this one alone, as I don't have the time nor the resources to properly delve into a line-by-line analysis of the form. I will, however, argue for the inclusion of other Eucharistic Prayers, as they can be better suited for different occasions. I agree, though, that those who revert to the shortest form by default without a pressing time constraint (like offering mass during a 20 minute homeroom period in a high school) are missing the point of having a variety of Eucharistic Prayers.

The Communion
(The Communion Rite)

On the Sign of Peace: Due to the Puritan history of our country and recent bouts of mass homophobia, many people have personal space issues that would make reinstituting the kiss of peace problematic after such a long time without it.

Also, as it is the Deacon's job to help direct the actions of the congregation, shouldn't he be the one to preferentially announce the sign of peace?

On the Striking of the Breast: This seems repetitive after the Penitential Rite, and the repetition does not seem justified beyond the continuation of the Tridentine Rite.

On the Neglecting of an Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion: The proposed rite does not allow for Deacons to distribute communion, as is expressly allowed today.

On the Communion Rail: Most churches have removed their altar rails, and many that still have them are kept so due to historical landmark status. Having been to mass as a church that still had its rail, I can say that one Priest serving communion alone to a congregation of any decent size will take an interminable time to distribute communion. This, combined with the Priest (and in some areas, Deacon) shortage, screams for the use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion.

On the Short Form of Corpus Christi: If multiple ministers, ordinary or extraordinary, are present to distribute communion to a large congregation, the Priest should have no reason to rush through the sacrament. I will agree that the response of "Amen" should be kept as an affirmation of the Real Presence.

Summary

The earlier parts of this proposed order of mass are borrowed heavily from the Tridentine Mass, with little/no updating of the language into modern, vernacular English. Latin clauses are quite complex and do not translate well into comprehensible English. The vocabulary from those parts borrowed from the Tridentine Mass is loaded with archaic words which need to be replaced so as to be understandable by the congregation. Laudably, the proposed order retains the use of lectors and other lay ministers (except, unfortunately, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion). The communion rite itself is borrowed from the current Novus Ordo and is much more contemporary; however, the practice of having a single priest dispence communion to the entire congregation is encouraged under this rubric. With the increasing sizes of modern parishes and the decreasing number of priests, such a regression will easily double or treble the time it takes to dispense communion. Overall, the proposal takes much of the Tridentine Mass for granted and preserves it for the sake of preserving it rather than for its own merits.

:: The Squire 4:03 AM :: email this post :: ::
...