But as I said, others may be addressed, including each member of the congregation :-

Ideo precor beatum Mariam ... et vos fratres orare pro me ad Dominum Deum nostrum

But only to ask them to add their prayers to mine. This clearly sets us, saints and me and you, on a distinctly different level from the Almighty.

I think this came out of the Easter choral piece recommendation thread, no? As others have pointed out, Our Lady, the angels, and the saints are invoked and addressed at various points during the Mass in the Roman rite. In the Byzantine rite, there is a Marian hymn during the Divine Liturgy: "It Is Truly Meet" (St. John Chrysostom) or "All of Creation" (St. Basil). Regardless of whether or not the bishops have said anything about Marian hymns or prayers during Mass, I'm at an EF parish and would ignore most USCCB liturgical suggestions anyway. I perceive the same sort of mentality at work here that says we shouldn't sing Eucharistic hymns during Communion unless the emphasis is on reception, not adoration, of the Blessed Sacrament - "Ave verum corpus" bad, "Take and Eat" good. Solemn nonsense!

I use the expression "pray to God", whereas on the other hand "pray through Mary and other saints.

I will repeat briefly here what I have left as a final offering on the other thread.

Several have put forth the confiteor as an example of address on our part to each other and to the saints and angels. Just as this incidence should not be taken lightly, neither should it be exaggerated in its relationship to the remainder of the sacred ritual text. This penitential rite is at the very beginning of the mass and is equivalent to the prayers at the foot of the altar in the old rite. Peculiar to it is that it is the single part of the mass in which the focus is on us and our unworthiness, and God's boundless mercy. It is an act of cleansing which prepares us quickly for the dramatic change of focus in the developing acts of praise, assimilation of holy writ, offering of sacrifice, and converse with God. The language of the penitential rite is, in relation to that of the remainder of the rite, unique to it. At no other part of the ritual text is any being other than God himself addressed directly or petitioned in any way. The entire mass, as is borne out by a careful digestion of the ritual text, is a gorgeous intercourse betwixt God's people and God himself.

The text, most notably in the canon, makes clear that we are in communion and memory of the company of saints, the BVM, the angels, but it also quite clearly does not address any of them directly, nor ask anything of them. They, like we, are participants in the mass; they, like we, have their gaze solely on the All Holy.

In the matter of the Universal Prayers, there are examples of such in the Roman Missal which should be taken as paradigmatical for any other locally composed ones. They reflect what the Church envisions as normative in these prayers, which, like the ritual text itself, are addressed to God alone.

Then, there is the matter of the language of the propers, which, when they quote ave Maria and such, may seem to address the BVM or some other saint. The propers are not prayers. They are quotations from scripture which illuminate the day's teaching, its theological import, or relate a Biblical event which is pertinent to the particular celebration. Ave Maria, then, as an offertory antiphon, is not a prayer, but the recollection of the angelic greeting and encounter, a recollection which illustrates powerfully the celebratory focus of the day. As it is with Ave Maria as an offertory antiphon, so is it with other texts which might seem to be prayer to a being other than God, but, in reality, function as important illustrative scriptural exemplars.

The matter of ancient sequences and such has been put forth as 'precedent' for the invocation or entreaty of saints for favours within the mass. Salieri has sagely pointed out that these sequences were pointedly suppressed at Trent. And, with good reason: they, insofar as they sometimes invoked saints, were not representative of what the Church believed appropriate at mass. The sequence as a poetic form often tells a story, relates theological truths, sometimes has dialogue, and, in the mediaeval era, very often spoke of its subjects in absolutely unreal and exaggerated language, language which the Church, wisely, judged improper at mass.

Others have pointed out that various orthodox rites contain prayers to the BVM. This is a red herring: They do indeed. But, the Roman rite does not! Based on the witness of the sacred ritual text itself, one can only conclude that prayer at any point or in any fashion to any other than God the Father, God the Son, or God the Holy Ghost within the mass is a gratuitous and presumptuous attachment upon the mass as the Catholic Church understands it and expresses it in its inviolable ritual text.

Excuse my ignorance, but where are the communion antiphons for the Immaculate Conception (Glorious things are spoken of you, O Mary, for from you arose the sun of justice, Christ our God.) found in scripture? Or the Offertory Antiphon for the Vigil of the Assumption (You are blessed, O Virgin Mary, for you have borne the creator of everything.You gave birth to him who made you and remain for ever a virgin.)? These do not seem to be in the bibles I have... Sorry, just trying to clarify.

And in the text for the prayers of the faithful we use around me, the last text reads, "In communion with the BVM, Mother of God, and all the saints without ceasing, let us pray to the Lord..." Would this be considered improper?

Kyle -
Astute observations!
They are not in the Bible.
By far, most propers are from the psalms or other scriptures.
Others, relatively few, but, for example, those for Corpus Christi, whose texts were composed by Thomas Aquinas, are non-scriptural.

I, of course, knew that the zealous and enterprising soul would ferret out some exceptions to disprove the normative thesis which I share with many others, including bishops. These few are what they are, and do not represent what is quite obviously meant to be normative. Viewed in the light of the vast body of the propers they are glaringly exceptional.

I get the abstract argument here, but it does not seem to correspond to the way the Church has actually prayed through the centuries. True, Our Lady and the saints are never directly addressed in the liturgical prayers, but their intercession is invoked both in the Roman Canon and the collects of their own feast days. Also, the Marian antiphons for many centuries have been a part of Compline. Singing the Ave Maria or other Marian prayers as motets are in much the same spirit. A sung motet is not meant to be strictly a liturgical text so I don't see that it has to conform to the same principles as the orations said by the priest.

This reminds me of relatively recent the directive that the tabernacle and alter have to be physically separate, based on the principle that the alter of repose and the altar of sacrifice should not be confused. The logic is there, but it seems like a solution in search of a problem. For as long as anyone can remember, the two altars haven been together with no discernible confusion on the part the faithful.

MJO - Sorry, I'm still new to proper liturgical syntax. (Given the P&W Masses my CM Director is trying to force my Music Director and I to do, and the state of music in SoCal, you can see I'm struggling.)

Just to clarify: Directly asking Mary and the Saints are bad, mentioning them (in communion with..., etc.) indirectly is ok?

What would be the proper name for the Holy Thursday altar?

When, then, does the Mass end? I've been taught it ends at the Ite Missa Est, and the recessional is optional. If this is the case, can we tack on a "Regina Caeli" or whatever the seasonal antiphon is? Or is it only appropriate as a prelude/postlude?