Arguments for the NO Mass?
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,428
    Yes what MJO describes is a matter of formation/training, see this anecdote: mass-practices-before-council by Fr. Hunwicke. Those, and it is not all Anglicans, with this formation can usually adapt themselves gracefully to a variety of liturgical styles, as appropriate.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,258
    yes. I pray for the pope, cardinals, bishops and priests with every rosary... always.
  • CharlesSA
    Posts: 77
    I have seen the name Geuranger mentioned once or twice in this thread. As someone who just left a monastery in the Solesmes congregation and read quite a bit from his work the Liturgical Year, I would be interested to hear some of y'all's comments with regards to participation in the Liturgy and its importance for the faithful.

    I wouldn't be able to articulate his arguments or cite anything from his work, but I have the impression that he actually had some sort of preliminary influence on the Liturgical movement that took off in the 20th century, in terms of emphasis on the faithful becoming more cognizant of liturgical texts and becoming immersed in the Liturgy in this way.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,499
    Gueranger was one of the first to produce a translation of the Mass into a vulgar tongue, of course his translation was not a literal translation as they were still banned (The Ordinary and Canon were considered to be too Holy to be translated).

    After him came the Hand Missals eventually with literal translations) that became common before disappearing in the 1970's (too many changes far to quickly).

    For his views, the Introduction (General Preface) in Vol. 1 of the "Liturgical year" is well worth reading.

    It remains to be seen if the 'Liturgical Movement' has been overall a force for good in the Church.
  • CharlesSA
    Posts: 77
    Yes, in the beginning of each of his volumes on the Liturgical Year, he provides commentary and prayers and translations for each part of the Mass. I didn't remember that the rest of the Ordinary of the Mass were considered to be too sacred to be translated into the vernacular, but I definitely noticed that he did not translate the Canon! Though the prayers he provided in place of each part of it were very beautiful, I thought!

    Regarding the Liturgical movement - I don't have a wealth of knowledge as many people on this thread have displayed, so I only know very basic things about this "Liturgical movement"...my views are that there is most certainly value in the idea (indeed, more than being valuable, I think it is true and accurate to say) that it is ideal for the laity to be able to "follow" the Mass and to sing the "parts pertaining to them". And my view is that there was no need for what is known now as the "ordinary form" of the Mass to be created in order to foster that "following" and singing (or saying, though singing the Mass is the ideal). On the other hand, maybe I'm a "modernist" of some sorts, but I definitely don't think the norm before Vatican II (i.e. Low Mass and praying private devotions) was the best thing, and that some minor reforms to what is now known as the extraordinary form of the Mass would be beneficial to attain the above "goals."
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,499
    but I definitely don't think the norm before Vatican II (i.e. Low Mass


    I accept that this was the norm in some places... But I have plenty of evidence that this was NOT the norm in ALL places and times.

    It appears that it was the norm to have full solemn Masses, In pre-reformation England and have Sung masses in small parishes churches in London c. 1900-1960's... to give two examples.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,428
    The Council of Trent also thought it important that people should be able to follow the Mass:
    SESSION THE TWENTY-SECOND,
    Being the sixth under the Sovereign Pontiff, Pius IV., celebrated on the seventeenth day
    of September, MDLXII.
    DOCTRINE ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.
    ....
    CHAPTER VIII.
    On not celebrating the Mass every where in the vulgar tongue;
    the mysteries of the Mass to be explained to the people.
    Although the mass contains great instruction for the faithful people, nevertheless, it has not seemed expedient to the Fathers, that it should be every where celebrated in the vulgar tongue. Wherefore, the ancient usage of each church, and the rite approved of by the holy Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all churches, being in each place retained;
    and, that the sheep of Christ may not suffer hunger, nor the little ones ask for bread, and there be none to break it unto them, the holy Synod charges pastors, and all
    who have the cure of souls, that they frequently, during the celebration of mass, expound either by themselves, or others, some portion of those things which are read at mass, and that, amongst the rest, they explain some mystery of this most holy sacrifice, especially on the Lord's days and festivals.
    (My emphases)
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • mahrt
    Posts: 508
    "the people have the right and the just obligation to sing the ordinary and the dialogues, etc., regardless of rite or use, AT MASS."

    Musicam sacram allows the choir to sing the ordinary, as long as the people are not excluded completely from the singing. In these cases, the participation of the congregation is mainly interior, but can be profound.
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,895
    @a_f_hawkins, I think we're on the same page here, but I would like to point out just for the good of the order that the explanations mentioned by the Council of Trent were normally addressed in the sermon.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw a_f_hawkins
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,895
    Musicam sacram allows the choir to sing the ordinary, as long as the people are not excluded completely from the singing. In these cases, the participation of the congregation is mainly interior, but can be profound.


    Yes. I would also like to add that MS also gave a clear hierarchy of degrees of singing, many of which from the first, without which nothing else should be sung, are ignored entirely. The dialogues in particular are almost never sung in the United States.

    From Musicam Sacram, #28 (emphasis mine):

    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 toward an ever greater participation in the singing.
    Thanked by 1WGS
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,037
    I think the church, at least in the U.S. but I suspect elsewhere too, has moved beyond MS. I really question whether it even has any legal standing given all the changes and shared responsibilities for liturgy in effect today.

    What generally happens is the Vatican publishes a document, then spend years watering it down and undermining it. Meanwhile, the bishops endorse it halfheartedly if at all, then do their own downplaying and undermining of it. Years later, we are left with not one document that serves as law, but 10 documents never meshed together or repealed so confusion reigns supreme.
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,895
    32. The custom legitimately in use in certain places and widely confirmed by indults, of substituting other songs for the songs given in the Graduale for the Entrance, Offertory and Communion, can be retained according to the judgment of the competent territorial authority, as long as songs of this sort are in keeping with the parts of the Mass, with the feast or with the liturgical season. It is for the same territorial authority to approve the texts of these songs.


    I would like to ask a question about this particular passage from Musicam Sacram #32: isn't an indult special permission to break a rule? "Confirmed by indults" in this passage is a confusing term. Reasonably, it can mean that "it has been noticed that certain places have already begun substituting the Proper of the Mass with "other songs," (ambiguous) and we are going to continue to allow it." This also means that MS was not clarifying, nor attempting to unify musical practice, but just making suggestions.

    I think the church, at least in the U.S. but I suspect elsewhere too, has moved beyond MS. I really question whether it even has any legal standing given all the changes and shared responsibilities for liturgy in effect today.


    There has been a lot of mention from others here that "the documents of V2 don't matter anymore, we've moved beyond that." So what are the rules then? What are the guidelines? Do the priests and bishops have local control over the liturgy now? Do they simply get to make things up as they go, as they see fit? This was condemned in Auctorem Fidei #6,7,8 and also in #9,10, and 11, vis:

    6. The doctrine of the synod by which it professes that "it is convinced that a bishop has received from
    Christ all necessary rights for the good government of his diocese," just as if for the good government
    of each diocese higher ordinances dealing either with faith and morals, or with general discipline, are
    not necessary, the right of which belongs to the supreme Pontiffs and the General Councils for the
    universal Church,—schismatic, at least erroneous.

    7. Likewise, in this, that it encourages a bishop "to pursue zealously a more perfect constitution of
    ecclesiastical discipline," and this "against all contrary customs, exemptions, reservations which are
    opposed to the good order of the diocese, for the greater glory of God and for the greater edification of
    the faithful"; in that it supposes that a bishop has the right by his own judgment and will to decree and
    decide contrary to customs, exemptions, reservations, whether they prevail in the universal Church or
    even in each province, without the consent or the intervention of a higher hierarchic power, by which
    these customs, etc., have been introduced or approved and have the force of law,—leading to schism
    and subversion of hierarchic rule, erroneous.

    8. Likewise, in that it says it is convinced that "the rights of a bishop received from Jesus Christ for the
    government of the Church cannot be altered nor hindered, and, when it has happened that the exercise
    of these rights has been interrupted for any reason whatsoever, a bishop can always and should return
    to his original rights, as often as the greater good of his church demands it"; in the fact that it intimates
    that the exercise of episcopal rights can be hindered and coerced by no higher power, whenever a
    bishop shall judge that it does not further the greater good of his church,—leading to schism, and to
    subversion of hierarchic government, erroneous.

    9. The doctrine which states, that "the reformation of abuses in regard to ecclesiastical discipline ought
    equally to depend upon and be established by the bishop and the parish priests in diocesan synods, and
    that without the freedom of decision, obedience would not be due to the suggestions and orders of the
    bishops," 1-false, rash, harmful to episcopal authority, subversive of hierarchic government, favoring
    the heresy of Aerius, which was renewed by Calvin

    10. Likewise, the doctrine by which parish priests and other priests gathered in a synod are declared
    judges of faith together with the bishop, and at the same time it is intimated that they are qualified for
    judgment in matters of faith by their own right and have indeed received it by ordination,—false, rash,
    subversive of hierarchic order, detracting from the strength of dogmatic definitions or judgments of the
    Church, at least erroneous.

    11. The opinion enunciating that by the long-standing practice of our ancestors, handed down even
    from apostolic times, preserved through the better ages of the Church, it has been accepted that
    "decrees, or definitions, or opinions even of the greater sees should not be accepted, unless they had
    been recognized and approved by the diocesan synod,"—false, rash, derogatory, in proportion to its
    generality, to the obedience due to the apostolic constitutions, and also to the opinions emanating from
    the legitimate, superior, hierarchic power, fostering schism and heresy.


    Allowing the conferences of bishops and even likewise priests of lower rank (i.e. not bishops), to make decisions regarding faith and discipline invites schism and heresy, primarily because there is no oversight.

    As far as I know, there have been no new changes to the liturgy since the Second Vatican Council. There have been explanations, and Popes and Cardinals have talked openly about different aspects of it, but no new documents have been drawn up, and no new directives or mandates have been issued. I will entertain sources for this if you have them.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,037
    CK, see my addition to my post on that.
    Thanked by 1ClergetKubisz
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,895
    What generally happens is the Vatican publishes a document, then spend years watering it down and undermining it. Meanwhile, the bishops endorse it halfheartedly if at all, then do their own downplaying and undermining of it. Years later, we are left with not one document that serves as law, but 10 documents never meshed together or repealed so confusion reigns supreme.


    Yes, that's the way of the modernists: ambiguity and confusion. Thank you for the clarification.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW francis
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,428
    MS predates the NO, and therefor needs adjustment to match GIRM. One obvious instance of this is the new role of the Alleluia in the NO. Absent an official revision, we have to make informed judgements.
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,895
    Absent an official revision, we go with orders in hand.
  • Ugh, I think I'll stick to EF when I can. The NO is full of disagreements and options, and some priests take it too far.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,258
    CO... 268 posts later...
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,258
    Cardinal Shoenborn celebrates the NO

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=67Lom28KSlg
  • fcbfcb
    Posts: 268
    Schönborn is not the new head of the CDF. It's Archbishop Luis Ladaria Ferrer. I presume he also celebrate the Ordinary Form, though perhaps not with Schönborn's particular...um...flair.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,258
    fcb

    thanks. corrected.

    flair? When will we (and you the clergy) put a stop to these blasphemous displays instead of dismissing them with sarcasm?

    PS... was that one invalid or just illicit? (hmmm... Don't think anyone will answer this question either.)
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,895
    PS... was that one invalid or just illicit? (hmmm... Don't think anyone will answer this question either.)


    @francis, from the video in your link, I don't think we can tell if the Mass was valid or not: there's not enough evidence, although some in the comments were saying that leavened bread was used for the consecration, which if that's true would render the Mass invalid. Possibly, it was illicit. Definitely, it is abusive.

    I also do think such a display is blasphemy, vis:

    Definition of blasphemy:

    1.impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things.

    2.Judaism.
    an act of cursing or reviling God.
    pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) in the original, now forbidden manner instead of using a substitute pronunciation such as Adonai.

    3.Theology. the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God.

    4.irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless, etc.:
    He uttered blasphemies against life itself.


    1. From the first definition of the word "pious:" "having or showing a dutiful spirit of reverence for God or an earnest wish to fulfill religious obligations," I would say that the actions shown in the video are not pious, and therefore would fit the first definition of the word blasphemy.

    2. I didn't see anything in the video evidence that was blatant cursing or reviling of God, and since we aren't discussing a Jewish example, and we can't be sure that the Tetragrammaton was pronounced as described in the second definition, we cannot say that the display in the video would be blasphemous under the second definition.

    3. The third definition doesn't apply, as we cannot tell from the video evidence if anyone assumed the rights or qualities of God to himself.

    4. The fourth definition applies, as the actions in the video were liturgical abuses, which constitutes irreverence towards the Mass, which is sacred.

    So, by the first and fourth definitions of the term, what is shown in the video evidence is blasphemy and liturgically abusive.
  • fcbfcb
    Posts: 268
    leavened bread was used for the consecration, which if that's true would render the Mass invalid.


    I'm pretty sure that leavened bread makes a Latin Rite Mass illicit, not invalid.

    When will we (and you the clergy) put a stop to these blasphemous displays instead of dismissing them with sarcasm?


    My leverage with Cardinal Schönborn is actually pretty limited, so sarcasm is my only weapon.
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,895
    I'm pretty sure that leavened bread makes a Latin Rite Mass illicit, not invalid.


    Here's what Canon Law has to say:

    Can. 926 According to the ancient tradition of the Latin Church, the priest is to use unleavened bread in the eucharistic celebration whenever he offers it.


    It does not mention that the use of leavened bread invalidates the Sacrament, but since such an act does violate Can. 926, it would be illicit, and thereby illegitimate. But let's examine it's validity:

    Valid:

    1.sound; just; well-founded:a valid reason.

    2.producing the desired result; effective:
    a valid antidote for gloom.

    3.having force, weight, or cogency; authoritative.

    4.legally sound, effective, or binding; having legal force:
    a valid contract.

    5.Logic. (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction.

    6.Archaic. robust; well; healthy.


    1. According to the first definition, the use of leavened bread in the Latin Rite would not be valid, as Canon Law states that the bread should be unleavened. Therefore, barring some justifiable reason such as the unavailability of unleavened bread, the use of leavened bread would not be valid according to the first definition, in light of Canon 926. This would especially be true if a priest could use unleavened bread but deliberately chose not to.

    2. The second definition is the matter we are discussing: can leavened bread become the Body of Christ? We cannot apply the second definition without begging the question.

    3. According to the third definition, the use of leavened bread would not be valid, because its use is not authoritative according to Canon 926.

    4. According the fourth definition, the use of leavened bread would not be valid, because it is not legally sound: it violates Canon 926.

    5. Since we aren't talking about an argument per se, the fifth definition does not apply.

    6. The sixth definition also does not apply.

    According to the first, third, and fourth definitions, the use of leavened bread is not valid.

    Another related Canon:

    Can. 924 §1. The most holy eucharistic sacrifice must be offered with bread and with wine in which a little water must be mixed.

    §2. The bread must be only wheat and recently made so that there is no danger of spoiling.

    §3. The wine must be natural from the fruit of the vine and not spoiled.


    Canon 924 specifically mentions that the Eucharist must be bread and wine, and offers no more commentary. However, Canon 926 states that the bread should be unleavened. If the use of leavened bread is valid in the Latin Rite, as it would not violate Canon 924, although its use does violate Canon 926, does Canon 924 apply to the validity of the Sacrament, while Canon 926 only applies to its ligitimacy? If so, please cite a source for that conclusion. Otherwise, it is reasonable to conclude that because the use of leavened bread violates Canon Law, its use renders the Sacrament invalid in the Latin Rite, as it is a defect in the matter of the Sacrament.
  • fcbfcb
    Posts: 268
    Here is an interpretation of the relevant passage in Redemptionis Sacramentum by Fr. Edward McNamara, who is generally quite conservative on liturgical questions.

    The key takeaway:
    The use or omission of leaven in baking bread does not affect the reality of the end product as true bread. And so both leavened and unleavened bread are valid matter for the Eucharist.

    The traditional use of unleavened bread in the Latin Church is a requirement for the Eucharist's licit celebration. A priest who consecrates a roll, bun or some other form of true wheat bread containing leaven performs a valid but illicit act.

    Most Eastern Churches traditionally use leavened bread for the Eucharist and this would be a requirement for the licit celebration of the Eucharist in those Churches.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Elmar
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,895
    Thank you, deacon. That was the information I was looking for. I have read relevant passages from Redemptionis Sacramentum and it does not state that using leavened bread would constitute matter that could not be consecrated as the Body of Christ. However, right at the beginning of RS #48, he states very clearly that "the bread must be unleavened." This is where the confusion lies: on the one hand, the law and Cardinal Arinze are clearly stating that the bread must be unleavened, but then especially in the case of RS, when Arinze discusses items that could render the Sacrament invalid, he doesn't mention whether it has to be unleavened. Since the use of unleavened bread appears in Canon Law, it would make sense to say that it is a requirement of the Sacrament. Does anyone have any primary sources that deal directly with the validity of the Sacraments? The good deacon has provided a useful source, but it is a secondary source as it is Fr. McNamara's interpretation of the relevant passages from Redemptionis Sacramentum. I'm not saying that Fr. McNamara's interpretation is wrong, but I would like to know the source for his information, because it might help clear up some of my confusion. Is there a document that states that "leavened and unleavened bread are both valid matter," or is his interpretation anecdotal? I was also aware that Eastern Churches in communion with Rome routinely use leavened bread. I have also perused the Catechism for more information, and it only ever mentions "bread" and "wine" but never whether it should be unleavened. So, leavened bread could be used because it is still bread, even though it is not legal to do so, but I'm still confused because it appears that the source material is conflicting.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,798
    Similarly, the June 2017 letter from the Holy See reminds priests that adding materials such as fruit, honey, etc., to the bread makes it invalid matter; but it does not say that unleavened bread is invalid matter.
  • Liam
    Posts: 3,781
    A couple of thoughts:

    It would rather difficult for Rome to declare the use of leavened bread invalid in the Roman rite because its own practice in that regard was not clearly uniform in that regard until the early Middle Ages and even then there were permitted exceptions.

    And the mixing of other ingredients is a grave abuse, but it's the issue of how much that matters in invalidity, though there's no good reason to deliberately risk it (the small wiggle room seems more about inadvertent traces - the Church probably having a long memory here of the bulk of its history when antiseptic purity would have been difficult to assure as a practical matter - even now, if you were to test your wheat flour, you might well find it's not 100% wheat flour, cough cough).
  • StimsonInRehabStimsonInRehab
    Posts: 1,559
    So I've gravitated back to this massive, soul-sucking thread . . . to congratulate CO on a good decision!

    The NO is full of disagreements and options


    I was actually thinking about this today at the (OF) mysterium fidei. A thought occurred to me at that moment: "Why are there three options for the reply at the Mystery of Faith? Can we pick and choose what exactly the MF is going to be from parish to parish? Why isn't it the MF refer to transubstantiation, which, as far as I recall, is what it's understood to be in the TLM? Why are these interjections even here?"

    But, I'm sure there will be plenty of clarifications from all corners involved as to why I'm in the wrong to think of it this way. Have at it, gents. Anyways, best of luck again, CO; everyone else, I'll be in the bar watching some Fr. Hesse videos.
    Thanked by 1Casavant Organist
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,895
    but it does not say that unleavened bread is invalid matter.


    @Chonak, I think you meant leavened here. Unleavened bread is what the law calls for and also what Cardinal Arinze stated must be used in Redemptionis Sacramentum #48.

    [Yes, thank you for clarifying my typo.--RC]
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,037
    Why are there three options for the reply at the Mystery of Faith?


    We use only "A." I don't know why the other two are there.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,798
    "Why are there three options for the reply at the Mystery of Faith? [...] Why are these interjections even here?"

    The memorial acclamation is apparently an imitation of a feature from certain Eastern liturgies. The topic came up in a thread from 2016, and in this comment I presented quotations from the Maronite liturgy to show the texts of their acclamations, along with some observations about what the Roman rite editors did to make a mess of them:

    http://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/comment/160254#Comment_160254

    The Holy See could easily improve the practice of these acclamations by simply assigning them to specific eucharistic prayers: #1 to EP 1, #2 to EP 2, #3 to EP 3. Then repeat for EP 4, and the other EPs for particular purposes.