After the sprinkling rite and when the chant is over, the priest, at his chair, standing turned to the people, should say, with his hands together, the prayer «Deus omnípotens, nos a peccátis puríficet, et per huius Eucharístiæ celebratiónem dignos nos reddat, qui mensæ regni sui partícipes efficiámur. R. Amen.»

Only after this Amen should the «Gloria in excelsis» begin. This is what says the Missale Romanum, 2002, appendix II, rubrics 5 and 6.

Let the pastor know that you'll be singing the offertory chant (with verses from the Offertoriale Triplex) during the homily. They should both be about ten minutes, so it will save even more time.

That's hilarious!

Paul Ford and others are, of course, correct in their contention that the rubrics of the Roman Missal do not permit what this priest proposes to do. Furthermore, the Gloria does not seem an appropriate accompaniment to the sprinkling. Nevertheless, I believe I understand the concerns that underlie his proposal to carry out this experiment.

Sacrosanctum Concilium decreed that "elements that had been added to the liturgy with the passage of time to little advantage" were to be eliminated. In the actual reform of the Ordo Missae, they were often not eliminated by replaced by novelties--to even greater disadvantage. The length of the "initial rites" in the 1969 Ordo Missae is disproportionate to their importance. Bugnini and the consilium are not to blame. Paul VI is. He insisted that several elements be included. The public confession is clearly an innovation, traceable only--as far as I know--only to the Lutheran Reformation. Cranmer borrowed it from Lutheran sources. The "Rite of Sprinkling," offered as an alternative to the "penitential act" is even longer.

Until after Vatican II the rite of sprinkling formed no part of the Mass. I can be traced to the ninth century, from which evidence shows that the celebrant stood at the door of the church and sprinkled the faithful one by one as they entered. In the late medieval rites the blessing and sprinkling of water followed Terce. At its conclusion the ministers went to the sacristy to vest for Mass. Even in the post-Tridentine period it remained a separate office. Unfortunately, it was attached to the beginning of the Mass, so that it appeared to be part of the Mass, and when it was included, the introit ceased to function as a processional chant.

Even so, the post-Tridentine form of the sprinkling rite was shorter than the one provided in the current Missal. The water was blessed privately, beforehand. The public rite included only the antiphon that accompanied the sprinkling, a few versicles, and a concluding collect.

In 1960 H.A. Reinhold, in "Bringing the Mass to the People," proposed that the sprinkling be incorporated into the entrance procession. He proposed specifically that the procession, heading toward the altar, should stop at the baptistry and that from there the celebrant should sprinkle the people. He recommended that the introit should accompany the procession from start to finish, and that the sprinkling should be performed as a mere ceremony rather than as a rite. His proposal was, in my view and in the view of many liturgists, much better than the scheme eventually adopted.

In 1982, when I visited the Roman Catholic Cathedral in Denver, "Asperges me" was sung as the entrance song. The celebrant sprinkled the congregation on his way to the altar, and the Kyrie followed immediately. What was done was not "legal," but I thought it was better than the prescribed form.

In my (Episcopal) parish the font is located near the entrance to the chancel. The ministers enter from the north transept. On Sundays the celebrant stops at the font, takes the vat, and sprinkles the congregation before going to the altar. Meanwhile the introit is sung.

I recognize the dangers inherent in a "flexible" attitude toward rubrics and prescribed forms. It can give rise to highly objectionable practices. On the other hand, I know that all the historic rites of Christendom evolved in a milieu where controls were not nearly so tight as they are in the Roman Catholic Church today.

The pope has expressed the hope that the "Extraordinary form" of the Roman rite and the "Ordinary form" would influence each other to advantage; but at the same time he forbids mingling of the forms--even to the point of not allowing the modern propers to be used with the pre-Conciliar ordinary. Perhaps he assumes that the rules restricting "cross-fertilization" will be lifted in the future.