Rorate Caeli

Reform in the New Mass
Vernacular celebrations with Latin Prex?

Ignazio Ingrao, religious correspondent for Italian weekly Panorama, reports the following:

BENEDICT CHANGES THE MASS - THE STUDY OF THE NEW LITURGY ASSIGNED TO THE CONGREGATION FOR WORSHIP

The rite of the Mass [Rorate: i.e. the Mass of Paul VI] 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.
Many of the Council Fathers believed that this would be the order of the reformed Mass: most parts in the vernacular and the (one and only) Roman Canon kept in Latin. In fact, the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium did not seem to foresee the use of the vernacular during the Canon (cf. SC 36, 2; 54; cf. Inter Oecumenici, 57-59). [Translation by Gregor Kollmorgen for The New Liturgical Movement./Tip: Papa Ratzinger blog.]

63 comments:

  1. Please, God, may this happen!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous5:22 PM

    AMEN to Antonio's comment, and soon!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous5:24 PM

    No, no, no!
    If the Eucharistic consecration will be in latin but not all the Mass, this will transform the consecration moment into something 'magic'.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous5:33 PM

    I hope this happens quickly, and that Latin is restored to more parts of the Mass, as well as restoring the use of the entrance antiphon in the vernacular instead of substituting it and others with hymns.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The reform of the reform is well under way. In my opinion the "extraordinary form" is the far better option but the pope knows that millions of catholics nurtured in the ordinary form have to be more or less spoon-fed with further changes. As has been said before, trying not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It would certainly be a very valuable start towards recovering a recognition of Latin as the western Church's official liturgical language in the popular mind.

    Also...that's one way to fix the pro multis problem!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous5:55 PM

    Hooray to all that, but when do the hordes of little girls and Eucharistic Monsters (my FSSP priest's term, not mine) make their exit?

    ~ Belloc

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous6:11 PM

    This is as I and many, many others have predicted. While Benedict XVI reconciles tradition, he will also embark on a project to reform the reform. I expect that he will make small changes at first and include some new options, such as restoration of the Traditional Offertory as an option. We shall see.

    But he clearly wants to keep some changes as well, such as the new lectionary, which he much prefers to the old.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous6:12 PM

    The magic comments is not in order. He will probably also restore the silent Canon, since Vatican II also foresaw keeping the Canon and Offertory soto voce. So you won't really hear the Latin anyway. But the idea here is to make the sacred Canon international, as a sign of our unity. The Eucharist is the Sacrament of Unity.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Please, Dear God, let this be true.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous6:14 PM

    On Paul Haley's comments:

    The danger, of course, is that the two Masses will eventually be merged into a compromise. But there is no way that this Pope wil have time to do that or come even close to it. What may happen in future pontificates is too difficult to say, I suppose.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous6:29 PM

    Excellent. Keep working Holy Father!

    ReplyDelete
  13. I recall a video on You Tube by Bishop Bernard Fellay of the SSPX. It was from May of 2007 from their chapel in Oregon; he was giving a conference. At the time, he was not to confident that there would even be the motu proprio which came, thanks be to God, not long thereafter.

    However, in this lecture he said, if I can paraphrase, “about a year ago spring 2006) I was made aware that a high-level panel was in secret, working on a new Missal for the Novus Ordo to repair the damage and make it more Catholic."

    Essentially, it involved fewer options, though one option would be using the “Offertory” from the 1962 Missal in the vernacular in the Novus Ordo and the
    suppression of all Eucharistic Prayers except EPI, the Roman Canon, and EPIII.

    The three year lectionary would remain.

    If this were to happen, it would make sense and it would coincide with the new Vox Clara Commission translation including the “pro multis.”

    Could this then be true?

    Could we also be on the verge of the elimination of the indult for Communion in the hand and a strong push or even mandatory ad orientem celebration?

    If the above happens, would that not be a “Novus Ordo” that the SSPX, while not required to celebrate, could accept without theological reservation?

    I too echo the use of the Entrance Antiphon as well as the Communion Antiphon and hopefully the english translation of the Offertory antiphonse as well and that they be mandatory. Not in place of a hymn but a hymn optional in addition to the antiphons.

    It all seems to be coming together as Father Z would say, brick by brick!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous6:52 PM

    The munificent blessings of a benevolent God to grant us the Greatest Pope of all time.

    Let Christ's Holy Vicar define Our Blessed Lady as Mediatrix of All Graces and watch the protestants, schismatics and enemies of the Holy Roman Church squeal in terror.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Well, it can't hurt! Fiat subito!!

    ReplyDelete
  16. The Reform of the Reform should end in the death of the Novus Ordo.

    This is a good start (would have liked the sign of peace to be eliminated thought, maybe next time).

    Once the NO starts to look more and more like a TLM there wouldn’t be any reason to offer one because the TLM's structures and prayers are superior

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous9:28 PM

    "If the Eucharistic consecration will be in latin but not all the Mass, this will transform the consecration moment into something 'magic'."

    No, it will make it special, like in "sacred" special.

    M.A.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous10:29 PM

    We will probably see all liberal Catholics disappear, clergy and laity if this were to happen, possibly in a serious schism. I am assuming we are to imagine an obligatory, universal change here, not some option that no one would use. This would be the intermediate stage of the reform of the reform, which, as Alexander suggested obliquely, should end some years down in the elimination of the Novus Ordo Mass altogether, outside of isolated exceptional places.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous12:12 AM

    the three year lectionary is stupid. there is plenty of opportunity for addition scripture reading during the liturgy of the hours.

    no eastern rite has a cycle greater than a year. this was a novelty.

    ReplyDelete
  21. We don't need a reform of the reform. Reforming a illegitimate rite such as the Novus Ordo is like trying to make a saint out of the devil. What we need is for the Holy Father to abolish the Novus Ordo completely and start afresh with the Tridentine Mass.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Please recall the Canon was said in soto voce to preserve and protect it. Much like the call in the Eastern Liturgy " the doors ,the Doors". It was as it were to emphasize the holiness by veiling it. A wonderful point by Martin Mosebach. The kiss of peace is an ancient part of the rite in the East and in Rome and ought not to be eliminated but rightly moved. What needs to go is "The Prayer of the Faithful" which alows some liberal whack job likely from Washington to pen a prayer for the Cause Du Jour. Usually crafting it in some politically correct usage so as to induce nausea.
    JPG

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous12:59 AM

    I think you're dreaming. These changes aren't going to vent out the smoke of Satan. That will take at least a reform of the priesthood, including a reform of all Catholic schools and seminaries, in the direction of Saint Thomas - and we're a long, long way from that! What this and the recent tinkering with the TLM appears to be is an attempt to move both approved masses to an unacceptable hybrid. And what that will do is either fail quickly and miserably or make the FSSPX much larger. And FSSP will probably be the first victims of the coming TLM changes - they are hardly in a position to refuse them.

    This is why I think FSSPX must move slowly and force the point that Rome and our Popes should stop this futile and arrogant effort to invent a holier mass. Just stop it altogether and humbly return to the perfectly holy one we had.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous1:47 AM

    Thank God for Pope Benedict XVI! I pray all these things will come to pass very quickly! May God preserve our Holy Father for many more years so that he can complete all that needs to be done for the Church.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The NO service of freemason Bugnini is responsible for the devastated vineyard. This is the vehicle which the modernists have exploited to undermine Roman Catholicism. There is only one authentic form of The Roman Rite which has been defended by orthodox Catholics for 40 years now at great cost against the attempts to annihilate it by the liberal modernisers in The Vatican and the provinces. Better to root out the cancerous cells and restore the body to its former healthy robust condition - the one Pope John XXIII (RIP) referred to before he set in motion the dubious conciliar machine.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous3:36 AM

    If one must keep the prayers of the faithful in the NO, would using the much controverted Good Friday _preces_ as the unchanging form for them not be a nod towards Roman tradition and eliminate the many hideous modern compositions already rightly lamented?

    And yes, may there please be an end to Protestant hymns and their ilk, altar girls, female lectors, extraordinary eucharistic ministers, and many more alien practices that I could record.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Let Christ's Holy Vicar define Our Blessed Lady as Mediatrix of All Graces and watch the protestants, schismatics and enemies of the Holy Roman Church squeal in terror."

    Are you kidding? We don't want them to squeal in terror, we want them to convert.

    --
    I don't think the pope will do this. It seems slightly odd and arbitrary. Other parts of the ordinary in Latin (Agnus Dei, Gloria) would be a better starting point.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anonymous10:13 AM

    The "reform" of the NO will demonstrate irrefutably, once and for all, that the NO was unsound and dangerous.

    This action of the Holy Father implicity verifies all that the late Archbishop stood for.

    It seems that this so called "reform" will have the following results:

    1) End of the V2 is infallible mentality.
    2) End of the progressivist, aggiornomento.
    3) Re-establishment of Sacred and Immemorial tradition as a norm of praxis for all reforms.
    4) Re-appreciation by vast numbers of the faithful of the prudence and superiority of the Ancient Roman Rite
    5) Increased calls for the use of the pre-bugninian Missale Romanum (i.e. pre 1948)
    6) Ultimate extinction of the NO in practice, as use will die out, such that Sacrosanctum Concilium will be a dead letter in 100 years. (Praise God! Let it be!)

    For this reason I am thankful for this news,

    Br. Alexis Bugnolo

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous11:15 AM

    What the Church decides is what I will accept; most certain the cruxifix at the center of the alter and communion taken on knees and in the mouth.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anonymous12:32 PM

    Patience, friends. Pope Benedict will go one step at a time, as it was said above, and like God himself, is not hasty. He also is wise enough to get that the longer one waits to implement these sorts of changes, the better they will be received as most hostility will come from the older (esp. baby-boomer) priests. In a few years, the JPII generation priests will make up a much larger portion of the clergy and there are fewer diocese run by the "spirit of vatican ii"-style bishops all the time (think about the changes over the past decade or 2 in places like milwaukee, madison, san antonio, etc.) even his eminence, cardinal mahony has on a few years left. little by little. patience.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Br Alexis,

    It is a dark and sombre reflection on the modernist post-conciliar order that the corrupt liturgical works of a freemason should be permitted to stand. All his destructive protestantising deviations ought to be eradicated "in perpetuum". I shall continue to pray The Mass from The St Andrew Missal until the day I die.

    Having worked with both Rites as MC and as musician, the "vernacular only" rite is deliberately subversive. The only way to dilute this tendency is to employ rubrics from The Latin Rite to keep the laity where they belong and to instil some form of reverence. This is why it has to be abolished. Ultimately, it is impossible to perfect what is defective. Thankfully, I abandoned this weekly liturgical nightmare some years ago along with the migraine it often gave me.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Andl;

    I think that the movement is toward having all of the Ordinary in Latin.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymous4:08 PM

    i'm novus ordo born and bread. can tell you that it drives young men away from the church because it is so feminized. i'm embarrased of it and wouldn't want to take a non catholic to it.

    until we get a tridentine mass where i live, i'm content with the byzantine rite.

    why did lefebrve sign off on sacrosacntum concilium--the origin of this mess?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous4:45 PM

    5) Increased calls for the use of the pre-bugninian Missale Romanum (i.e. pre 1948)

    Br. Alexis Bugnolo,
    I understand that there are questions about the 1962 Missal of John XXIII. Some have questioned the reforms of the 1955 Missal of Pius XII. But needing to go to a pre-1948? This is the first I've heard of this. What are the problems that would require going back that far?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anonymous10:44 PM

    "Hooray to all that, but when do the hordes of little girls and Eucharistic Monsters (my FSSP priest's term, not mine) make their exit?"

    I copied/pasted this quote from a contributor.
    I also am anxious to see the exit of all the little "altar girls", and the other Eucharistic Ministers....mostly all women.
    It all started in the mid 1970's, when femminist habitless nuns
    pushing for more roles for women...and even women priests maneuvered themselves into positions of visibility during the Mass. Now, the few radical nuns in parishes that remain are in their 70's, but they've spawned a new generation of women volunteers who won't get off the altar willingly.
    We'll be hearing alot of whining, crying, and see alot of fist shaking before their gone.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Judging by many of the comments here and empirical experiences over the last 40 years we can understand why traditional Roman Catholicism does not want any "reconciliation" or Freudo-Jungian psycho-histrionics with modernists in The Church. We must ensure that the liberals and modernisers are kept at a safe distance from the liturgy. They are not Catholic: their liturgical delinquency and doctrinal deviance has to be stopped immediately. Without this there will be another attack on The Latin Mass. The NO Bugnini service has to be scrapped because it is subversive and a conduit for further subversion. It provides a channel for further assaults on The Latin Mass of All Times. It is not reformable since it is already a rotten tree.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anonymous10:39 AM

    Dear Brian,

    The Missale Romanum pre 1948 is the Missale Romanum before Bugnini changed anything in it.

    It contains the Ancient Rite for Holy Week, as celebrated for by the Roman Church, which explicitly mentions that the week is for the celebration of those with the Faith, contains the ancient consecrations of the Palms and the Paschal Candle, communion only for the priest on Good Friday, the doctrinally exact prayers for the conversion of the Jews, the reproaches against laity and clergy, the wonderfully elegant and worshipful rubrics for Holy Thursday, the private clergy only ceremony of the Mandatum, etc. etc. etc. Not to mention the ancient organization of the Feast Day's dignities (Duplex, Semiduplex, Simplex, etc..), theh faithfilled unedited readings for Matins which are uncontaminated by the principles of historico-critical exegesis of scripture and hagiography, etc. etc.

    In other words the Missale Romanum and Breviarum Romanum before 1948, is the liturgy willed by Saint Pius X, whom God permitted to work more than 30,000 miracles during his pontificate and life, as an eternal testimony to the prudence and holiness of everything he did.

    We already have the liturgy as it ought to be in that Missale and Breviarium. (Ofcourse one would have to add those new feasts which are consonant with Sacred Tradition, such as the Assumption, the Immaculate Heart, while retaining those such as the Cornation, the Finding of the Holy Cross, the Apparition of St. Michael the Archangel, etc. etc. and those true saints such as Padre Pio.)

    ReplyDelete
  38. Dear Anonymous,

    So then, if the only valid Roman Missal is from 1948 then I guess the SSPX are not even Traditional enough and have therefore been infected by Bugninian modernism too?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anonymous1:43 PM

    "Dear Anonymous,

    So then, if the only valid Roman Missal is from 1948 then I guess the SSPX are not even Traditional enough and have therefore been infected by Bugninian modernism too?
    "

    That is a scary thought, that Bugnini and company were working at destroying the Church as early as the mid 1950's!!
    Pius XII was a great Pope and a saint...there is no doubt. But he did make three mistakes in his Pontificate which were very damaging in the long run to the Church. Perhaps he didn't know what he was unleashing. But they were still mistakes.
    1). Reforming the Missal Romanum in the early 1950's, deleting much of the Holy Week observances and other traditions.
    2). Making a strong suggestion (in 1957, shortly before his death in 1958), that nuns modify their religious habits and discard vesture and traditions which seemed to be obsolete/archaic.
    3). Planning for and making preliminary rulings for a "Vatican II", which was planned to be held in the early 1950's, but which Pius XII lost interest in and the idea was shelved. Had he gone ahead with his plans, and officiated at a Vatican II in the 1950's, perhaps the Vatican II under Pius XII would have been much better outcome than the Vatican II ultimatly celebrated under John XXIII and Paul VI.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Anonymous2:54 PM

    I wouldn't say that the pre-1955 missal is the only valid form of the Roman rite, but it's the last missal that is the full tradition handed down by our spiritual fore-fathers, rather than reformed. Given that, for instance, the Holy Week liturgies of 1969 are, at this point, more traditional than the liturgies of 1962, a re-evaluation of the 55 and 62 reforms is as welcome as a re-evaluation of 69.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anonymous4:38 PM

    '... the Holy Week liturgies of 1969 are, at this point, more traditional than the liturgies of 1962 ...'

    !!!

    Please elaborate.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Anonymous5:13 PM

    True enough. The NO is WAY too estrogen-saturated. No wonder men have left the building.

    And the priests keep asking in their homilies "Where are the men?"

    Hel-looooooooo....No clue. Nobody's home.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Anonymous7:46 PM

    For starters, the reform of the Paul VI Mass should include, by all means, a universal form of the consecration, so that it is in Latin in all places and in all parts of the world, and not merely an ethnic or linguistic symbol of worship. Authentic reform, in this case, must clearly demonstrate the real presence of transubstantiation, and not merely an anticipation of it. In the consecration, Christ is now truly present in our midst as the Victorious Victim who sheds His life-giving Blood upon us. This is the Body and Blood of Chrsit that IS TRULY GIVEN UP for us. Let us enter into [introibo] the life-giving love of His sacrifice in order to worthily paticipate in His life of virtue.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Next stop the Ad Orientem.. If Pope Benedict XVI pursue this agenda, I believe this so-called Mass of Paul VI would become the "Benedictine Mass". If only they would include the ad orientem stance.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anonymous3:31 PM

    They can try to restore, reform, or change the Novus Ordo of Paul VI with little thhings all they want, but to it's core it's still neo-Protestant, and ecumenical/Protestant in it's original inspiration.
    IN order to REALLY reform the Mass of Paul VI, the present Pope would have to make alot of major changes....not little piecemeal tinkerings.
    Some of the changes he would have to introduce are:
    1). ad orientem celebration only (ban the little Protestant tables).
    2). issue guidelines as to the form, design of vestments allowed for Mass (example, no sacriledgeous designs, mod designs, or Protestant style vesture for Mass.) Protestant style vesture for Mass is popular in Europe, and consists of just the plain linen or monastic style alb, with a stole over it.
    3). ban Communion in the hand, re-institute only Communion on the tongue kneeling.
    4). ban altar girls, women Eucharistic ministers, and liturgical dance.
    5). Ban laypeople giving homilies.
    6). Issue guidelines as to the style and content of liturgical vessels (chalices, ciboriums). No more glass or "earthen vessels".
    7). Ban all Protestant music from Catholic Mass, as well as modern instruments.
    8). Issue guidelines to instruct the faithful in the celebration of the Mass, and in Gregorian Chant.
    9). Ban liturgical "sharing" with Protestants, and other ecumenical activities.
    10). Supress the "Offering of the gifts" by lay people.
    11). Supress the "Sign of Peace"
    12) Supress the "Responsorial Hymns" and the "General INtercessions"....known as the "Bidding Prayers" in the Episcopal Church,---where the Catholic Church copied the idea for the "General INtercessions from.

    I think if the above was instituted, rather than minor tinkerings, we could truely have a Catholic Mass again.....mind you not as perfect as the Tridentine Rite, but then again...nothing could come close to that.

    ReplyDelete
  46. "This is why I think FSSPX must move slowly and force the point that Rome and our Popes should stop this futile and arrogant effort to invent a holier mass. Just stop it altogether and humbly return to the perfectly holy one we had."

    Another great example of one haugtily demanding another one to be humble, made by a supporter of a schismatic groups which cannot actually practice what it preaches.

    PS. As long this attitude prevails, nothing the Pope can do will win over the SSPX.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I applaud the effort and the intention of our Holy Father, but cannot wholly applaud the concrete measures talked about here:

    -Latin is not needed to solve the "pro multis" problem. Just insist on a literal translation in the vernecular and there would be no more problem.

    -A return to a silent/inaudible canon will not lead to greater piety but simply give way to distractions (which was the all too often the practice before the liturgy reform). Horror vacui is a fact.

    -More practical problems occur with making communion in the mouth obligatory again. Some generations have been educated in receiving in the hand and know no other way of receiving in a dignified manner. Any change should be gradual, aiming at the long term. And of course everyone knows how receiving in the mouth can be undignied too.

    -How does one imagine that this could be implemented when right now the exiting missal is not properly used everywhere? And some reader spoke of a schism but in contrast to him that is not a reason for exultations. And certainly not the intention of our Pope.

    To end on a positive note: things like celebration ad orientem, moving the sign of peace, a greater emphasis on proper songs (antiphons, gloria as gloria, sanctus as sanctus etc.) are certainly good developments.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "For starters, the reform of the Paul VI Mass should include, by all means, a universal form of the consecration, so that it is in Latin in all places and in all parts of the world, and not merely an ethnic or linguistic symbol of worship."

    But that is a nonsensical demand as the Mass never was in Latin in all places. Consider the Eastern rites. And before the Mass was ever celebrated in Lating it was celebrated in Greek, even in Rome. That's not saying anything this way or that way for Roman rite but that's how far such a demand goes. But it still would be "ethnic" in a way.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "True enough. The NO is WAY too estrogen-saturated. No wonder men have left the building."

    You are forgetting that in some quarters the men were absent under the old rite and only entered the church to witness the consecration.

    The liturgy reform certainly had its defects but it is not the root of all evil, as some here apparently believe.

    ReplyDelete
  50. "I think if the above was instituted, rather than minor tinkerings, we could truely have a Catholic Mass again.....mind you not as perfect as the Tridentine Rite, but then again...nothing could come close to that."

    So if all of your twelve points are instituted - some of which would lead to disastrous results when dictated from above, some of which are already the norm in the Novus Ordo (vessels, lay sermons are forbidden), some of which are just nonsensical (what are "modern intruments", what is "protestant music", who is supposed to offer the gifts?) - if all this were instituted, you would give the Holy Father a pat on the back and say: "Nice try but still not good enough!" Typical.

    ReplyDelete
  51. This would be absolutely wonderful!

    I have been wondering for a while whether the Pope should issue guidelines "from on high" rather than wait for parish priests to notice what the problems are with the NO - which type of priest in the UK is in the vast minority.

    I think communion on the tongue is the most important point, then kneeling, then the location of the tabernacle. I would rejoice to see mandatory Latin at the canon - even better if sotto voce!

    The tradition offertory seems like hope beyond hope!

    Ad multos annos!! Vivat!!!

    ReplyDelete
  52. Anonymous1:18 PM

    'A return to a silent/inaudible canon will not lead to greater piety but simply give way to distractions (which was the all too often the practice before the liturgy reform). Horror vacui is a fact.'

    Far from being an obstacle to actuoso participatio, the inaudible canon will force the faithful to participate to a degree unheard of in the Novus Ordo. If one cannot hear the priest, one must actually take the trouble to LEARN the canon and OFFER the holy sacrifice in union with the priest.

    ReplyDelete
  53. "10). Supress the "Offering of the gifts" by lay people."

    What do you think is wrong with lay people offering the gifts? (asking with sincerity---because I don't have a considered opinion of the matter)

    pax,
    Scott

    ReplyDelete
  54. "Far from being an obstacle to actuoso participatio, the inaudible canon will force the faithful to participate to a degree unheard of in the Novus Ordo. If one cannot hear the priest, one must actually take the trouble to LEARN the canon and OFFER the holy sacrifice in union with the priest."

    Just as it did before the reform? It didn't happen then, it will not happen now, at least not when practiced widely. People then busied themselves with praying the rosary etc. The rosary's not bad but the sacrifice of our Lord is more important.

    And no, if the people don't hear they cannot participate in anything the priest does. A silent canon is against the principles of liturgy set up by the Tridentene Council.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Anonymous5:23 AM

    'A silent canon is against the principles of liturgy set up by the Tridentene Council.'

    Really?

    Canon 9. If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned ... let him be anathema. (Council of Trent, Session 22, Holy Sacrifice of the Mass)

    ReplyDelete
  56. And why did the Council of Trent lead to the removal of rood screens?

    Canon 9 in full reads:

    "If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema."

    Does anyone know the context?

    BTW, does low tone mean silent? I don't think so!

    The people need not understand everyword but they should be able to hear that something is going on there. Otherwise: horror vacui.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Anonymous7:04 PM

    Praise be to God!

    Also, it would be great to move the tabernacle back to the very prominent location at the center of the altar. And remove the Eucharistic ministers, altar girls, and other “progressive” changes since the good ol days.

    ReplyDelete
  58. I WOULD SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING "REFORMS OF THE REFORM":
    1. WHEN THERE IS A CHOIR, THE FOLLOWING WOULD BE IN THE TRADITIONAL LANGUAGE:
    1. KYRIE;
    2, GLORIA;
    3. CREDO;
    4. PATER NOSTER;
    5. AGNUS DEI.

    THE WORDS OF CONSECRATION WOULD BE IN LATIN AND THE ORDINARY CANON WOULD AGAIN BE THE ROMAN CANON; THE PATER NOSTER WOULD BE IN LATIN, AS WOULD BE THE ECCE AGNUS DEI---.
    THE FINAL BLESSING WOULD BE IN LATIN.
    THERE WOULD BE AN OFFERTORY AND ENTRANCE HYMN IN LATIN IN CHANT.
    SINCE THE CANTOR WAS A DISTRACTION FROM THE PRIEST THERE WOULD BE NO CANTOR, JUST A CHOIR.
    COMMUNION WOULD BE KNEELING BY MOUTH
    THE PRIEST WOULD BE FACING THEN HIGH ALTAR, BACK FACING THE CONGREGATION.

    THIS WOULD BE IN LINE --- ALL OF THIS --- WITH THE POPE'S OWN PRACTICE.

    THIS IS STILL NOVUS ORDO. IT STILL LEAVES OUT MANY TRADITIONAL PRAYERS,

    BUT IT WOULD BE MUCH BETTER THAN THE CURRENT RUBRICS.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I WOULD SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING "REFORMS OF THE REFORM":
    1. WHEN THERE IS A CHOIR, THE FOLLOWING WOULD BE IN THE TRADITIONAL LANGUAGE:
    1. KYRIE;
    2, GLORIA;
    3. CREDO;
    4. PATER NOSTER;
    5. AGNUS DEI.

    THE WORDS OF CONSECRATION WOULD BE IN LATIN AND THE ORDINARY CANON WOULD AGAIN BE THE ROMAN CANON; THE PATER NOSTER WOULD BE IN LATIN, AS WOULD BE THE ECCE AGNUS DEI---.
    THE FINAL BLESSING WOULD BE IN LATIN.
    THERE WOULD BE AN OFFERTORY AND ENTRANCE HYMN IN LATIN IN CHANT.
    SINCE THE CANTOR WAS A DISTRACTION FROM THE PRIEST THERE WOULD BE NO CANTOR, JUST A CHOIR.
    COMMUNION WOULD BE KNEELING BY MOUTH
    THE PRIEST WOULD BE FACING THEN HIGH ALTAR, BACK FACING THE CONGREGATION.

    THIS WOULD BE IN LINE --- ALL OF THIS --- WITH THE POPE'S OWN PRACTICE.

    THIS IS STILL NOVUS ORDO. IT STILL LEAVES OUT MANY TRADITIONAL PRAYERS,

    BUT IT WOULD BE MUCH BETTER THAN THE CURRENT RUBRICS.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Anonymous11:53 PM

    Why are we going backward? The Mass should be in the vernacular.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Why should the Mass be in the vernacular? And why do you think this is going backwards, rather than making progress towards repairing the grievous harm inflicted on the liturgy during the past 40 to 50 years?

    ReplyDelete
  62. Because that is how a lot of commenters appear, with no reason for going back but that it is going back. Just look at the last one in capital letters.

    ReplyDelete

Comment boxes are debate forums for readers and contributors of RORATE CÆLI.

Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand.

_______
NOTES

(1) This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly. Any comment may be blocked or deleted, at any time, whenever we perceive anything that is not up to our standards, not conducive to a healthy conversation or a healthy Catholic environment, or simply not to our liking.

(2) By clicking on the "publish your comment" button, please remain aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.

(3) Any name/ pseudonym/ denomination may be freely used simply by choosing the third option, "Name/URL" (the URL box may be left empty), when posting your comment - therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to simply post as "Anonymous", making debate unnecessarily harder to follow. Any comment signed simply as "Anonymous" will be blocked.

Thank you!