• quilisma
    Posts: 123
    I have been reflecting upon certain actions performed during the EF (maybe just in our parish). This is the fact that the celebrant sits down (and is copied by the congregation) part way during the Gloria and Credo.
    Now, I could understand this if a (long) polyphonic setting were used, however, if a chant setting, in which all participate, is used, it seems strange to sit down and continue singing. I wonder if such a practice does indeed come from the period when such polyphonic settings were very much the norm.
    Thanked by 1CeciliaJulia
  • Quilisma,

    Do you mean that the celebrant and the congregation sit during the singing of the Ordinary CHANT of the Gloria and Credo? That does strike me as odd.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,449
    Well the Sacred ministers and servers sit down once they have recited the Gloria and Credo, the choir continues standing as they are singing it. What the congregation do is up to them, normally they would stand with the choir, but if they are not singing well why not sit down with the priest and servers?

    As they EF has no rules for the congregation only customs, (that vary between countries) I suspect they think they need to follow the actions of the sacred ministers / servers and not the choir.
  • quilisma
    Posts: 123
    Yes, indeed.
    After the celebrant intones the Gloria, he pauses a while at the altar and then moves to his chair and sits down. The congregation follow suit - well, most of them. There are a few that resist and the choir stays standing, but they are up in the choir loft.

    Maybe he actually waits until having finished "reciting" the rest of the Gloria in a low voice, and then moves. I will ask him next time I have a chance.


  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,355
    Rubricae generales section X, #523 when the celebrant may sit, #518 when the celebrant genuflects, including #518(b) what he does if already sitting when a genuflection comes up.
    It is permitted. It is the EF feature (or bug) which most influenced my welcoming of the reform of the liturgy. (It still bugs me.)
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,355
    But #524 "In choro non sedent qui actu cantant, ..."
  • CatherineS
    Posts: 169
    In my experience the priest (and company) sit when he finishes reciting the Gloria or Credo. The congregation imitates them and also sits, while the choir continues singing (standing). I can't recall ever seeing anything different.
  • quilisma
    Posts: 123
    If the reform had only gone so far as to make the priest stand for a couple of minutes here and there....
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • CharlesSA
    Posts: 73
    If all of the congregation sings it, is indeed odd - and, at least according to the directives I am familiar with, though these directives might be modern, not appropriate to sit while singing a liturgical setting.

    The priest is not "pausing" - he is indeed finishing his required recitation of the text, in both the Gloria and the Creed.

    I am guessing this would not have been a problem, say, 100 years ago, when everything was sung by the choir alone. This would seem to be a good example of modification of practice - if one wants to encourage the congregation to sing the Ordinary of the Mass, that is fine (in my opinion), but if they do sing it, I believe the directive is to follow the choir's posture, that is to stand. This goes for the Sanctus and Agnus Dei as well.

    As a side note, related, it seems better to stand for the Sanctus and Agnus Dei anyway, whether it is sung or not. This is especially noticeable at a Low Mass, but it could be noticed in a High Mass too: if everyone is starting to kneel at a Low Mass at the beginning of the Sanctus, the first half of the priest's recitation of the Sanctus is drowned out by the clamor made by the putting down of kneelers and kneeling. At a High Mass, depending on the Mass setting, it would only be perhaps the Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus that is drowned out, but this seems still less than ideal.

    Who knows, maybe this is only a modernist complaint driven by rationalist arguments or something.
  • I shall have to observe for a few weeks, with special attention to this, now that you (all) have drawn my attention to it in a new way.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,355
    The directives are 'modern', in that a sung Mass that is not Solemn is a late development. But the 1604 rubrics expect even clerics in choir to stand during the Kyrie, Gloria, and Credo, sitting at these times is /* restricted to the Celebrant, Deacon and Subdeacon, (unless I have mistranslated).
    {edit} /* an option
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,449
    @a_f_hawkins

    In the EF rubrics you need to watch out as there are two types of choir, those that are singing and those that are in (sitting) in choir. The modern books also make this distinction (see Fortesque).
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,701
    maybe this is only a modernist complaint driven by rationalist arguments


    Yes.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,701
    CatherineS has the same experience as do I.

    By the way, does sitting or kneeling deprive someone of the ability to sing? I did not know that!
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,355
    Well the 1962 view is that clerics 'in choir' can sit when the celebrant sits if they are not themselves singing, but the 1604 view seems to be that they cannot (at Kyrie etc). This is not due to a confusion with the schola since in both years they are permitted to sit (as is the celebrant) during the singing of the Offertory and Communion (by persons unidentified).
  • madorganist
    Posts: 512
    From the general rubrics of the 1962 Missal:
    524. In the choir those who are actually singing do not sit, but the rest may sit:
    a) when the celebrant is sitting;
    b) while the lessons and the epistle, the gradual, the tract and the Alleluia with its verse, and the sequence are being sung;
    c) from the offertory until the incensing of the choir or, if the choir is not incensed, until the preface;
    d) from the end of the communion until the Dominus vobiscum before the postcommunion.
    At other times they stand, genuflect or kneel, as above.

    Choir here refers to the liturgical choir in the sanctuary or choir stalls, not necessarily the schola cantorum that actually sings (although the two may be identical in some circumstances). There are no general rubrics legislating the posture of the congregation; it depends on local custom. Sitting during the Gloria and Credo certainly goes back to a time when there was no congregational singing. It is equally correct for the congregation to stand where that is customary if there is congregational singing. It makes little sense for them to stand throughout a polyphonic Gloria or Credo or even a chanted one that they don't actually sing. I believe it is also possible, but not recommended, for the celebrant to recite the Gloria and Credo very slowly so that he doesn't sit at all. I have been to one TLM where the celebrant sang the Credo along with the congregation throughout. That practice is not envisioned by the rubrics, which direct the celebrant to say the rest of the Gloria and Credo quietly at High Mass.

    The congregation may also remain standing for the Sanctus and Agnus Dei, again if it's customary. At the beginning of Mass, do they stand as soon as the priest ascends the steps of the altar, or wait until the intonation of the Gloria? Custom varies, sometimes even from one church to another in the same city.

    Not to hijack the thread, but has anyone else encountered singing the Salve Regina as part of the Leonine Prayers after Low Mass?
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • We sing each Marian antiphon in its season after the Leonine prayers.
  • madorganist
    Posts: 512
    Same here, which I think is not uncommon, but my question is about chanting the Salve instead of saying the "Hail Holy Queen." I've known of one FSSP priest who did that after Low Mass and I found it peculiar. I'm wondering if it's perhaps more prevalent than I suspected.
  • StimsonInRehabStimsonInRehab
    Posts: 1,544
    I knew a Mercedarian priest who did the same practice as you mentioned, mad.
    Thanked by 1madorganist
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,449
    encountered singing the Salve Regina as part of the Leonine Prayers after Low Mass?


    I think once or twice (so very rare) what is more common is the additional singing of the Salve Regina or Regina Caeli (Eastertide) after Low Mass.
    Thanked by 1madorganist
  • stulte
    Posts: 240
    my question is about chanting the Salve instead of saying the "Hail Holy Queen." I've known of one FSSP priest who did that after Low Mass


    Ours do this.
    Thanked by 1madorganist
  • CharlesSA
    Posts: 73
    maybe this is only a modernist complaint driven by rationalist arguments


    Yes.

    dad29,

    I suppose that taken strictly by itself, the "complaint" I made could be seen as small, petty thing that has no great relevance. However, especially in our modern liturgical climate - partially brought on by the Novus Ordo itself and how it is carried out, but also already pre-dating the introduction of the Novus Ordo and all 60s changes - it seems to me quite relevant. If one is going to claim (which I am not saying you would claim, but many do, even among those who realize the value in and the superiority of the Tridentine Mass) that it is good for the lay people to "participate" by way of listening to the texts of the Mass and following along with the priest, then it would seem logical to conclude that it is less than ideal for any of the texts that are meant to be heard by the congregation (or even said/sung by them) to be obscured in any way, which is precisely the problem with kneeling right at the beginning of the Sanctus, when as a result, as I mentioned, the first half of it (depending on whether the priest is blazing through the text or not) is drowned out.

    If you are saying that my complaint is modernist/rationalist in the sense that it is modernist/rationalist for the congregation to be paying exact attention to or directly participating in the texts of the Mass exactly as they are being said, then so be it - I suppose that is a whole separate argument which I, for one, think is a good argument to have.
  • Carol
    Posts: 455
    Why aren't the kneelers down since the beginning of the Mass? Shouldn't the kneeler be down since you knelt and prayed before Mass began and so then the kneeler would remain down throughout the Mass. If you arrive late for Mass and slink into your pew in shame, then you might need to put the kneeler down as inconspicuously as possible.

    I taught my Catholic school students to pray and then leave the kneeler down throughout the Mass. I also taught them that a kneeler was NOT for standing on to get a better view. It was always interesting to see many of the same children at Mass with their parents (thanks be to God) but not behaving as I had taught them. Rather they exhibited behavior they thought they could get away with, when they were with their parents.

    I guess I am revealing my age!

  • Liam
    Posts: 3,717
    Kneelers are normally down only when used in my experience. Saves them from being stepped on, which they are not designed for.... YMMV.

    I like to call the sound of kneelers hitting the floor "Catholic Thunder". Especially when you are in the lower church beneath.....
    Thanked by 2KARU27 Carol
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,355
    Westminster Cathedral has kneelers that are too low to get your toes under, and not enough space to stand when the kneeler is down (and they were bespoke not off the peg). The result is spectacularly noisy, and used to be very protracted until they added an expensive label pointing to the lock.
  • CatherineS
    Posts: 169
    I've never encountered this thunder of kneelers!! In most of the churches where I assist (mostly non-EF, but still), the kneelers don't go up and down (if they did at one time they are now rusted/broken/frozen in the down position). People kneel and stand without making notable noise. And people also prop their feet on them, kids stand on them, etc. of course.

    In a few churches I've been to where they do go up and down, one uses ones foot to snag the kneeler, gently supporting its trajectory so that it doesn't crash down, and puts it back up again after. There's often very little room between rows of pews (which are not fixed to the floor), so if the kneeler stays down you can hardly stand or walk in and out.

    Since we are detouring, can I ask who is in a parish where people go out for Communion row by row, and who has the 'everybody just get up and work your way to the front on your own' style of Communion?
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,355
    Not regimented but fairly orderly, since about four requests from the ambo by the MC, reinforced on a couple of major occasions, by ushers blocking the (one central) aisle. That was fifteen or sixteen years ago, previously it was fairly chaotic.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,960
    People get up and join the two lines in the center aisle. In front, persons at the head of the lines receive then go back using side aisles. Those who choose to receive kneeling kneel at the rail and wait until the priest is free. The choir has gotten too old to go down for communion so someone comes upstairs, usually a deacon or the associate. We have kneelers and it is possible to bang them on the floor, but most people don't. Fairly orderly, actually.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,701
    then it would seem logical to conclude that it is less than ideal for any of the texts that are meant to be heard by the congregation (or even said/sung by them) to be obscured in any way,


    Ermmm....you seem to be saying that 'if they can't hear it, they can't have participated' or something akin to that.

    You are not giving the PIP's much credit, are you? In English or in Latin, the PIP's can read along (as a last resort,) but certainly--unless they are stone-deaf or in another room altogether--they KNOW what the priest said.

    So yes, it's a rationalist's concern, exactly along the lines the rationalists were thinking when they pulled the Big Switch from Latin to the vulgar.
  • CharlesSA
    Posts: 73
    "Ermmm," well, it may seem that way, but I am certainly not saying that people haven't participated in something if they haven't heard it; furthermore, I am most certainly not a supporter of the vernacular/vulgar language in the liturgy.

    I guess all I am getting at is that I am not commenting about PIP not hearing just any text. For example, the silent Canon is, well, silent and meant to be, and thus is not something I am "concerned" with. However, the Sanctus is prescribed to be said out loud; although I am well aware that for various reasons, and in various circumstances, spoken texts of the priest will not be heard well, it seems that there is a *reason* that some texts are prescribed to be said out loud. I.e. it seems that by virtue of them being prescribed to he said out loud, in an audible voice, the Church is telling us to listen.

    It is along these lines that I mean to argue, not "make everything understandable (as if that is possible...) and in the vernacular." I would not argue one is not "participating" if one does not hear a text that is meant to be heard; only that it is better to hear it than to not hear it. There is of course the consideration that there are many circumstances in which some texts just can't be heard (i.e. back of a big church, etc); and of course as long as one is uniting oneself to the Holy Sacrifice and is internally "participating" to the best of his ability, then yeah, for PIP it does not have to be of primary importance to hear and/or understand texts. However, if we consider the fact that the fullness/completeness of the Roman Rite is the Solemn High Mass, when all those things meant to be heard are more readily heard by means of being sung (whether by priest/deacon/subdeacon or especially by choir), it seems logical to conclude that although the ideal is not (and cannot, often these days) met all the time, there are still ideals for which one must strive if it is possible.
  • Carol
    Posts: 455
    We used to have the big free for all going up to receive communion. Now we go row by row up the center aisle and return by the side aisle. Choir stays in the loft and receives from a deacon or associate.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,701
    To my mind, you're pushing the envelope right off the table, but hey! This is all theoretical anyway.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,730
    The unguided approach has one benefit: a person who abstains from Holy Communion for some reason (not fasting, a desire to make confession, etc.) doesn't stand out.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,701
    "...abstains from Holy Communion....."

    I remember seeing passionate articles in Homiletic & Pastoral Review BEGGING that the old 12-hour fast be re-instated rather than the practice of today which (frankly) encourages sacrilege.

    Nobody cares....
  • Elmar
    Posts: 113
    I am not aware of these (should I?) and only know about a former 3-hour fast. What would be the benefit of a 12-hour fast instead? Most of the time (in our situation, at least) the extention would be like Saturday 10 p.m. to Sunday 7 a.m. ... so the point in question would simply remain: "Do we have breakfast on Sundays?"
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,960
    I remember the 12-hour fast. People would actually pass out. It was impossible to have masses later in the day because few could hold out that long. Also, it was based on a faulty understanding of digestion and how long food actually stays in the stomach. Getting into extremes like this seems more like the Pharisees who didn't understand that the Sabbath and religion are made for man, not the reverse that Jesus condemned. At best faulty science, at worst Medieval extremism.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Carol
  • The fast was from midnight to whenever Mass occurred, not a 12 hour fast. At the time, most Masses were in the morning, so it wasn't an issue. As Mass scheduling started to occur later in the day (I was told WW II was a factor), the practicality of the midnight fast became questionable and it was changed to a 3 hour fast during the pontificate of Pius XII.
  • at worst Medieval extremism


    Surely, extremism in the defense of virtue...….
    Thanked by 1Carol
  • Carol
    Posts: 455
    My mother told me that she passed out once when she went to a later Mass. Communion Breakfast had a different significance in those days.
  • Ted
    Posts: 145
    Getting back to the original question, the priest sits during the singing of the Gloria and Credo in the EF. The Credo and Gloria have already been said by the priest. This singing of these is given to the choir as an extra devotion for the people to listen to.
    The idea of people singing these at all during the Catholic Mass is recent at least since before Carolingian times, and derives from the idea of "modern man" who has to be an extrovert, constantly spewing verbiage out of the mouth that developed at the turn towards the 20th century in the business world. To get anywhere in society, even today, you need to be such a noisy extrovert.
    There is no reason why people cannot sing quietly in their hearts along with the choir and thereby actively participate in the song as was done for centuries. But like so many perversions of the liturgical movement (LM) (I am now reading influential works by Lambert Beauduin the founder of the LM, available at the Internet Archives) to be active is to be such a noisy extrovert. It is amazing how the LM was so successful in convincing popes and other intellectuals of these disciplinary matters in liturgy.
  • madorganist
    Posts: 512
    The fast was from midnight to whenever Mass occurred, not a 12 hour fast. At the time, most Masses were in the morning, so it wasn't an issue. As Mass scheduling started to occur later in the day (I was told WW II was a factor), the practicality of the midnight fast became questionable and it was changed to a 3 hour fast during the pontificate of Pius XII.
    All correct. It's easy to fast when you're asleep! If I'm not mistaken, the old rule before evening Masses were allowed was that, with a few exceptions, Mass could not begin more than an hour before dawn or an hour after midday, and Holy Communion would normally not be distributed outside those times except to the sick, who weren't obliged to fast. The principle was that the Blessed Sacrament was the first food you consumed on a given day.

    The fast from midnight is not by any means unique to the Latin rite, nor is it an example of "Medieval extremism." I can't speak for all of the Eastern churches, but the traditional Byzantine Communion fast is also from midnight, even for the evening Presanctified Liturgies in Lent, which is a considerable sacrifice. The mitigated fast for evening Liturgies is from noon after a late breakfast or early lunch, and the bare minimum for Catholics is the modern one hour before Communion.
    Thanked by 1dad29
  • madorganist
    Posts: 512
    The Credo and Gloria have already been said by the priest. This singing of these is given to the choir as an extra devotion for the people to listen to.
    NO!!! The sung Gloria is the actual Gloria of the Mass; it is not just a sort of devotional entertainment for the congregation. It is the recited Gloria of the celebrant that is the duplication, not the other way around—a Low Mass practice assimilated into High Mass and later codified. Same for the Creed.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,960
    What amazes me is that some Trads have learned little from their previous mistakes. The silent canon, music so difficult only a choir can sing it, zombies participating silently in the pews - they say they are participating. If they had dozed off you wouldn't be able to tell. Lengthy fasts before communion, and all the above and more are the types of things that caused the old mass to go nearly extinct. Looks to me like a return to the same things. Changes were needed in the old rite, but a backlash had built up and the changes did go too far, too fast. The Trads are setting themselves up for another backlash that may even be worse next time. YMMV.
    Thanked by 1CeciliaJulia
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,701
    The fast was from midnight to whenever Mass occurred


    Yes, thanks for the correction. It was 12 hours only if you attended the 11:00 AM Mass.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,701
    zombies participating silently in the pews


    So every single person who attended Mass silently was a zombie. Like Teresa of Avila, St Maria Goretti, Dominic Savio, Benedict XVI.....and my mother. Charles, you sure know how to pull a "duh"....

    Lengthy fasts before communion...are the types of things that caused the old mass to go nearly extinct.


    So THAT'S why the EF went 'nearly extinct'? If you look at the actual numbers of Catholics attending weekly Mass in 1965 vs. in 2015, you are made into a liar, my friend.\
  • Charles,

    In the modern era, with the modern rite, in a language at least some of the congregation calls a vernacular, and music which is designed to entertain...… why do a small fraction of the people even who attend Mass accept what the Church teaches?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,960
    Whatever happened, happened. I remember great rejoicing when the old mass went away. I actually kind of liked that mass because it presented its theology well. But even I thought it had become too clericalized and obsessed with externals. It still seems to be so.

    I think part of that drop in attendance might have had something to do with young folks not taking the church as seriously as their elders had. You remember that these younger folks were upending and upsetting all of society at the time and undermining both secular and religious institutions. many of them left and never came back, despite all the ineffective things done "for the young people." They left anyway.
    Thanked by 1a_f_hawkins
  • stulte
    Posts: 240
    The Trads are setting themselves up for another backlash that may even be worse next time. YMMV

    You mad bro?
    Thanked by 1madorganist
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 9,960
    Never mad. I would like to see them interact more with NO people and do a better job of explaining themselves. They, at least locally, isolate themselves and act like enlightened members of a cult. Not all, but too many. There are some good people there, too. Some are good at creating animosity toward themselves and that gets blamed on the mass, which is responsible for none of that.
    Thanked by 1NihilNominis
  • madorganist
    Posts: 512
    zombies participating silently in the pews
    And this does't apply equally to the novus ordo? I mean the reality, not the ideal. Some of us find beauty and meaning in the silent canon, music so difficult only a choir can sing it, and lengthy (i.e. more than 15 minutes before the beginning of Mass) fasts before communion. To each his own, I suppose. I second dad29's point about the numbers. It's a demonstrable fact that the new rite was imposed from above, not at all in response to the desires of a majority of the faithful. It went "nearly extinct" because it was forbidden and suppressed and people were made to think they would go to hell for supporting "renegade" priests who continued to offer it—not because people weren't participating. I don't think sitting for part of the Gloria or Credo is going to endanger the future of the TLM. It has survived much worse.
  • stulte
    Posts: 240
    CharlesW - I'm not sure what the details are in the situation where you are located. But from seeing a couple places, a lot of issues with traditionalists stem from the lack of a solid priest who is on-board with their legitimate desires to care for them pastorally.