Novus Ordo and the Splict Sanctus-Benedictus
  • Tom
    Posts: 1
    Can anyone identify a document that clearly and explicitly addresses whether, in the Novus Ordo, the Sanctus and Benedictus can be split and sung while the priest says parts of the Eucharistic prayer silently. Put it this way: If a priest was called to prove that such a practice was licit, is there any document to which he could appeal?
    Against such a practice someone could bring G.I.R.M. #78: "The Eucharistic Prayer demands that all listen to it with reverence and in silence." There is no way for the faithful to listen to it if it can't be heard. There is no place where it says the Canon is or may be said silently.

    I'd love to hear comments
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    Anyone care to answer this? It's an issue I've been wondering about for some time now. And don't quote documents that apply to the EF.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    "There is no way for the faithful to listen to it if it can't be heard. There is no place where it says the Canon is or may be said silently."

    I don't know much about the rules. But I'd like to know whether it's possible you can hear the prayer internally, assuming that we can be taught to do that.

    Also are there customs that are not specified but just done as a tradition, especially on priests' parts?
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,574
    Tom: "identify a document [...] Novus Ordo [...] sung while the priest says parts of the Eucharistic prayer silently"

    See the CMAA Forum Discussion "Accompanying the Eucharistic Prayer"

    http://musicasacra.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1252

    Documents and paragraph citations are clearly presented there.
  • urli
    Posts: 35
    I thought that Cardinal Ratzinger had, somewhere, at some point, made a case for the Eucharistic Prayer being prayed silently, even in an OF Mass?
  • On liturgical matters I find myself in agreement with the pope more often than not; but in the matter of the choral Sanctus I disagree with him vehemently.

    The unity of the Eucharistic Prayer must be manifest. This unity is greatly obscured when three distict styles of vocal utterance are employed in its rendering: Chant for the preface, Polyphony or other modern music (sometimes accompanied) for the sanctus, and the natural speaking voice for much of the remainder of the prayer.

    The Roman Canon refers to "hoc sacrificium laudis." The theological connection between thanksgiving and offering is intimate. To obscure the unity of the Eucharistic Prayer is to obscure this connection, especially when the Roman Canon is used, because the element of praise and thanksgiving in that prayer is largely confined to the preface.

    The Eucharistic Prayer is offered in the first person PLURAL: "nos servi tui sed et plebs tua sancta." The people are assumed to be offering it together with the officiating priest. Its very nature demands that it should be audible.

    As I envision it, the ideal is that the entire prayer, from the Sursum corda to the final Amen, should be sung to simple anaphoral chant (such as that provided in the 2003 missal), and that settings of the Sanctus should be limited to those belonging to this same genre, which can be sung without introduction of a new pitch. This is seldom done. Those who have experienced the prayer rendered in this way are few, but they have almost always been pleased by the experience.

    Much of the polyphonic Sanctus repertory is beautiful and awe-inspiring, of course. Love of it prompts people to seek a way to include it in the modern rites. The arguments they advance are, however, questionable at best.

    The 1969 GIRM ends with a declaration that its provisions obtain, "all other things notwithstanding." The argument that provisions in the 1967 document, Musicam sacram, supersedes the provision in the GIRM which says that the Sanctus is sung by all appears to me to be quite specious.

    The American Book of Common Prayer (1979) specifically prescribes that the Sanctus be sung or recited by "Celebrant and people." Choral settings of the Sanctus are frequently sung in the Episcopal Church; but they are neither lawful nor appropriate.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    So you don't agree with choral Sanctus either ? I hope you read " Is a Choral Sanctus Permitted" from the same Jeffrey's link above before you read the paragraph about the split. It makes a lot of sense when you do.

    "---In fact, the assertion that the acclamatory character can be attended to only by the con­gregation is completely unfounded.----Whoever does not pay attention to the mystery character and cosmic character of the invitation to sing in unison with the praise of the heavenly choirs has already missed the point of the whole thing. This unison can occur in a variety of ways, and it always has to do with being representative of or standing in for others. --- If the congregation has a choir that can draw it into cosmic praise and into the open expanse of heaven and earth more powerfully than its own stam­mering, then the representative function of the choir is at this moment par­ticularly appropriate. --- interior joining in with their singing are bestowed than a congregation’s own acclamation--- the choir calms us interiorly, leading each one of us into silent prayer and thus into a union that can occur only on the inside? Must we not relearn this silent, inner co-praying with each other and with the angels and saints, the living and the dead, and with Christ himself? This way the words of the Canon do not become worn-out expressions that we then in vain attempt to substitute with ever newly assembled phrases, phrases which conceal the absence of the real inner event of the liturgy, the departure from human speech into being touched by the eternal. Lengeling’s veto, which has been repeated by many others, is meaning­less. The choral Sanctus has its justification even after the Second Vatican Council."

    (I just quoted a few here and there. Please read the whole thing)
    To me it makes lot of sense than any interpretaion of rubrics.

    It seems that 'Mystery of Faith" is lost these days by the demand of explicity with audible and vocal prayers. The sense of Mystery during Eucharist can be better grasped by the silent Eucharistic prayer and the heavenly Sanctus.
    He is trying to bring this 'Mystery of Faith" back with the emphasis on our interior communicaition with God in our liturgy. Maybe many people need to relearn it, and musicians can help?
  • "The Eucharistic Prayer is offered in the first person PLURAL: "nos servi tui sed et plebs tua sancta." The people are assumed to be offering it together with the officiating priest. Its very nature demands that it should be audible."

    Let's count up all the liturgical "reforms" proposed and executed in defense of its "very nature". It's an old song, and I've learned to cringe when it starts playing. I leave it to the theologians. What I find offensive to the "very nature" of the liturgy is reformer-types who are blatantly dismissive of centuries of liturgical history and Church custom. More than anything, that sort of dismissiveness perpetrates the hermeneutic of rupture.
  • The three-musical-styles description made by Bruce Ford is a result of the musically agnostic and ineptly implemented reforms embodied in the Missal of Paul VI. In the EF/TLM, the preface leads magisterially (sic) into the the heavenly song of the Sanctus. The following solemn prayers are offered to Our Lord, not as a call to worship to the faithful. The notion that there needs to be some sort of musically monochrome, exactingly audible rendering of these complex and ancient prayers is a modern aesthetic goal, not a deeply-rooted, theologically grounded liturgical principle. Indeed, in the sung forms of the TLM, the Sanctus, Benedictus, and Agnus happen simultaneously with many of the celebrant's prayers. The notion that this ancient practice is inadequate and inappropriate is not a reasonable position in the post-SP world. Mia is precisely and movingly correct. Imposed notions of 'unity' originate outside the liturgy itself and many times belie--on the part of at least some liturgical commentators--a thinly veiled hostility to individual, interior experiences of corporate liturgical prayer.
  • Richard R: Do you think that the post-Conciliar reforms did more harm than good? If so, I don't agree with you, and our differences of opinion are too great to be resolved in an exchange on an electronic forum such as this. I believe that the reforms were carried out hastily and that the 1969 Ordo Missae is certainly patient of improvement; but I think that in some respects it is far superior to the pre-Conciliar rite.

    Daniel Bennett Page: You wrote: "The notion that there needs to be some sort of musically monochrome, exactingly audible rendering of these complex and ancient prayers is a modern aesthetic goal, not a deeply-rooted, theologically grounded liturgical principle."

    Substantial evidence indicates that "these complex and ancient prayers" were generally rendered in the manner I described until the 8th century--in Rome, at least. ) Josef Jungmann, The Mass of the Roman Rite.) Your statement that this manner of rendering them reflects a "modern aesthetic goal," therefore, seems questionable. Furthermore, singing the whole Eucharistic Prayer does not seem to accord with modern taste, inasmuch as it is rarely done. You say that the practice I recommend has no theological or liturgical rationale. I offered one in the third paragraph of my initial posting. You have not said why you discount it.

    You also wrote: "Indeed, in the sung forms of the TLM, the Sanctus, Benedictus, and Agnus happen simultaneously with many of the celebrant's prayers. "

    The other prayers are, indeed, the celebrant's prayers. Most of them, in fact, are cast in the first person singular. The Eucharistic Prayer, although uttered by the celebrant, is the prayer of all the baptized who are present. When some celebrants began to recite parts of the Byzantine anaphora silently, the Emperor Justinian ordered them to stop, arguing that the people could not be asked to say "Amen" to a prayer they had not heard.

    Insistence that the Eucharistic Prayer be rendered audibly and in a style that manifests its unity does not necessarily indicate "thinly veiled hostility to individual, interior experiences of corporate liturgical prayer." I feel no such hostility, and I agree that one role of liturgical music is to promote such prayer. I think it is entirely appropriate for the people to engage in interior prayer while the choir sings the Agnus Dei, for example, or after communionion, while the choir sings a motet. (I also favor periods of silence after the readings.)

    Richard R.: You described the rendering of the Eucharistic Prayer that I branded ideal as "dismissive of centuries of liturgical history and Church custom." I suppose that it is. But so was the introduction of the silent canon in the eighth century (earlier outside Rome). So the question I would pose is "What theological and liturgical considerations underlay the introduction of the silent canon?" and "What theological and liturgical considerations underlay the restoration of audibility?"

    To say that every practice that evolved over the centuries represented progress would be foolish. Much of what we detest in contemporary liturgical practice evolved spontaneously during the past forty years.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    There were lots of unsettlements with many things in early church. So I believe there were many customs of 8th century that the Church had to modify. (also the level of people's reading ability, and their familiarty of prayers in mass, availibilty of written materials, and so on.) Also, they used many different languges, including Greek, but our Church declared later Latin as the Church's official language. Although it seems that not many people these days accept that. And I feel that people who want more audible and everything vocal do not want latin either, because vernacular works much better for that purpose., external and explicit. Pope's explanation of silent prayer fits to the spirit of liturgy. Silent Eucharistic prayer can still use 'plural first person.' We can still pray with the priest internally and spititually and can still say 'Amen." This is the time I really have to put my mind together and engage more actively to focus to pray and offer my own prayer with the priest, instead of just listening to the prayer. This is the time I really feel that casual languges , vernacular and human voice that I hear every day are not sufficiant enough to bring the image of Eternal God.

    Since in modren days people can view the tradition, custom differently, and interpret rules in many different ways of their own ( and easily miss the simple truth because of our over intellectual, technical and complicated mind ), Our Pope is helping us to see the truth and understand the liturgy in more spiritaul way. But I guess you have choice to do it in a different way.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    Our priests repeatedly talk about how God is eternal, and tell people to trust HIm, because He knows everything. People don't really see or feel that as real. Many still seem to confuse that God doesn't answer their prayers 'on time.' Our trust in God who knows everything and who is eternal, and universal has been diminished by bringing Him down into our level in our Mass. God is extra 'friendly' in modren litugy, but do we really trust Him with everything and trust the Church and her teachings too?

    Gregorian chants and Pope's writings really help me to relearn my faith and understand the liturgy, that is universal, eternal, and cosmos (I still have to learn a lot), much much bigger than what I knew, temporal and local. Of course I had to go through many steps. I'm sure the Church has to provide the Mass to people who are too busy to do more than just minimum requirements. People in modern times are too busy to learn latin, even short prayers, too busy to study the liturgy.
  • RobertRobert
    Posts: 338
    The position that the canon must be audible would appear to be anathematized by the Council of Trent, session 22, Canon 9.
  • "To say that every practice that evolved over the centuries represented progress would be foolish."

    This may be, but the burden of proof must be on those who would dismiss a practice that the Church has approved of for many centuries (and no one is approving of "every practice" which happened to develop). The questions "What theological and liturgical considerations underlay the introduction of the silent canon?" and "What theological and liturgical considerations underlay the restoration of audibility?" are legitimate, but not the only questions that need to be asked, unless you include the approved and long-standing practice of the Church under "liturgical considerations." But the claim that a practice was done until the 8th century (e.g. the audible canon) is not in itself a theological argument - in fact, it smacks of the "archeologism" which Pius XII warned against in "Mediator Dei."

    Sam Schmitt
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,713
    The notion that there needs to be some sort of musically monochrome, exactingly audible rendering of these complex and ancient prayers is a modern aesthetic goal, not a deeply-rooted, theologically grounded liturgical principle.

    I might have substituted "utilitarian" for "aesthetic."

    Clearly, the Canon has been read aloud (or at least sotto) AND read inaudibly, both efficaciously.

    Would Mr. Ford contend that his audibility-insistence goes to validity or liceity?

    Then why should he be so strenuous?

    The choir has always been 'representative' of the people, and as Mgr. Schuler noted, also of the Angelic choir. Mr. Ford's position would seem to negate both those functions, at least in principle if not effect.
  • I did not say that audibility was necessary to validity, nor do I think so.

    "Liceity"? The GIRM gives no indication that silent recitation of parts of the Eucharistic Prayer is permitted in the "novus ordo" Mass. Perhaps the practice is authorized in some ofther official document. I do not discount the possibility. But some cite Musicam Sacram (1967), and to them I point out that BIRM (1969) says "all other things notwithstanding" (or something similar). How, therefore, can Musicam Sacram override GIRM?

    I am strongly committed to choral music in the liturgy. Certain of the musical parts of the liturgy do, however, belong to the people. I believe that the Sanctus is one of them, and GIRM, at least, supports my stance.

    More important, the choral Sanctus does, indeed, obscure the unity of the Eucharistic Prayer; and structure does have theological overtones. As I wrote in my first posting: "The theological connection between thanksgiving and offering is intimate. To obscure the unity of the Eucharistic Prayer is to obscure this connection, especially when the Roman Canon is used, because the element of praise and thanksgiving in that prayer is largely confined to the preface."

    Not every promoter of true sacred music would like to see a return to the pre-Conciliar liturgy (or to something resembling it very closely). I think that liturgical renewal has on the whole been a good thing--even though abuses have accompanied it; yet I am quite willing to go to the mat in support of chant propers and polyphony.

    I must confess that I have experienced the silent canon only a few times in my life. I have had much more experience with the employment of polyphonic Sanctus settings when the whole Eucharistic Prayer has been recited aloud. Typically the Sanctus has been sung in Latin while the rest of the Eucharistic Prayer has been recited in English. I have spoken of this rendering as "the macaronic Eucharistic Prayer."

    Everyone, obviously, will not agree with me. I posted merely to express a point of view on the question that is seldom expressed in this forum.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    I do appreciate sharing your views. Only thing I really don't understand or disagree is when people says 'this prayer belongs to people'.(in this case Sanctus) Why internal prayers are not counted at all?. So only when you vocalize the prayer you are actually praying? Frankly, I can pray much better when I pray internally. I pray with the choir when I hear their singing Sanctus. I don't feel deprived or left out because the choir sings the beautiful Sanctus. I'm totally with them in experiencing Heaven. Does this count at all? (when I get distracted with bad music and people shouting at my ears, that's when I fall down to earth. By the way why people think singing loud is considered a good singing or actively participating? The parents and teachers also keep telling children sing louder and louder. For many of them, the quality of singing equals the volume.)
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,765
    I, too, find the switch from a Latin Sanctus to an English canon a bit odd. I'd like to hear priests become more comfortable with the canon in Latin, as the Council envisaged.

    In general, though, I think accommodating the ancient and modern languages in the Mass is not a problem. It's even a reminder of the Church's Mediterranean origin. Of course the old form of Mass has preserved the Greek Kyrie all along, and the papal liturgies show a little more Greek, too, in Holy Week, at Easter, and at Christmas.

    Some of the Eastern churches -- I'm sure Bruce knows this already -- have similar vestiges: the Maronite rite keeps a few parts of the liturgy in Aramaic, including the consecration. It's a point of pride for them to chant the words of our Lord in (approximately) His language.

    In the Melkite-rite churches I know, congregations are mixed, with immigrants speaking the old-country language and descendants born in this country speaking English (or both). Priests, people, and choirs freely switch among Arabic and English, and include some Greek elements at times. And for the Ukrainian churches, there's Ukrainian, English, Slavonic.

    I guess many of the churches can "stick a feather in our hat and call it 'macaroni'".
  • Macaronic eucharistic prayer, indeed, Bruce! How about macaronic mass?! I have never understood the logic of those who maintain that they have improved the mass or achieved some objectively superior goal by singing parts of the ordinary and proper in Latin when the mass is being celebrated in English. This is a hodge podge, a pastiche, a little bit of this and that which does not, in sum, represent an aesthetic or literary unity. It can be, in fact, if one is focused on following the language of the rite, distracting. (Aware that I may be hoist on my own petard, I make exceptions for anthems and motets, these being ornaments.) None of this is said in a spirit at all in denigration of Latin. Far from it! It is merely to suggest that one should decide what the language of a given celebration is going to be and to offer it in that language with equal reverence, ritual solemnity, and aesthetic sensibility; and, singing every word of it to historically rooted music whose ecclesiastical function and ethos is unmistakable. One language is not inherently more beautiful than another, nor does the ritual and attitude with which it is used necessarily have to be more, or less, fitting for Divine Worship. In reaffirming the hallowed place of Latin in our heritage and its status as the official language of the Church, one also accepts that the Church has put its blessing on our English language, a language which can be quite as lofty a liturgical tongue as any other. The Anglican experience is proof of this. The problem, then, is the particular English with which the Church in America has been saddled. It is, arguably, the most (deliberately!) artless liturgical language in the history of mankind. (One Basilian priest remarked to me that he had been using it for forty years and there was not one memorable phrase! Not so, the BCP.) Nor does any degree of sacral efficacy inhere more in one rite, novus ordo, usus antiquor, Anglican Use, or Byzantine, than another. Again, it is that the greater number of Americans have made an unnecessary but conscious choice to celebrate their English masses in a manner most unfitting. The problem is not, sui generis, one of rite. Rather, it is one of attitude, respect, and deep understanding of what, exactly, one is doing. Its solution is in reformed priestly formation in our seminaries, and the dedicated work of individuals and groups such as the CMAA. Beautiful liturgy vs. English liturgy is an utterly false dichotomy. Our plate is full. The Church has blessed us with a glittering array of rites, uses, and languages; liturgical ethoi: let us make the MOST of EACH of them.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    It sounds very confusing. Many people in this country have hard time learning even short prayers in latin. Maybe we should learn latin Ordinary parts first before we start adding other languages? (and of course Greek Kyrie) You might never hear the end of the complain if we start adding many different church's traditional languages.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    In Rome, under John Paul II, it was sometimes split.

    After the Mysterium Fidei, the Benedictus started and the Pope listened to it like everyone else.

    I feel like, if this were wrong, the Pope would have corrected it.
  • "Do you think that the post-Conciliar reforms did more harm than good? "

    The assumption behind the question is that the novus ordo was intended as an improvement (correction, ecclesial mea culpa) to the usus antiquior. Conciliar intentions (or more to the point, post-conciliar polemics) notwithstanding, Summorum Pontificum would seem explicitly and categorically to refute that assumption. Far be it for me, then, to argue the opposite (despite my great respect for traditionalist skeptics, without whom we would have had no indult, and no motu proprio). Co-existence, not to mention mutual enrichment, demands mutual respect, which I attempt, in my weak and fallible way. But if pressed (and no, it doesn't take much pressing), I tend to defer to a millennium-plus of Church practice. Miserere mei.
  • JamJam
    Posts: 636
    About switching from language to language being odd...

    Why is the Greek Kyrie is taken just a matter of course? If you can have one part of the Mass in Greek and the rest in Latin, why not other languages also? What makes that exception so special and different? And if you say, "tradition," a lot of the rites that switch up languages -- lots of Orthodox and Eastern Rites -- have a tradition of mixing up languages too. Just saying.

    Honestly, just to throw my two cents in, it's shouldn't be about old vs. new. It shouldn't be about liturgical "renewal." I always thought Vatican II meant to make organic what Trent ossified. So liturgy is supposed to be about organic development again, not renewal and restoration, as if something had gone horribly wrong with it. Yeah, the Tridentine Mass has problems (sorry folks but I'm all for vernacular liturgy and an audible Eucharistic prayer), but all liturgy has it's own trouble. In my opinion it would be better to start with our Latin traditions in the Tridentine Mass and work from there, rather than just making stuff up out of nowhere. For example, having Mass that is basically the Tridentine Mass but communicates Christ under both species to the people, or makes the Eucharistic prayer audible, or is written in English (good, lofty English!). But it's too late for that I guess. I think we shouldn't focus on the details so much but rather the essence of liturgy. A certain amount of diversity in rites is healthy and normal (hence all the Eastern Rites, and even Western Rites such as the Dominican Rite and Ambrosian Rite). What kind of diversity that is not normal is diversity that is built not off different expressions of people's faith but rather different expressions of people's tastes and preferences. So for example, audible vs. inaudible Eucharistic prayer is a fight over people's expression of faith, the expression of unity vs. the expression of mystery and inward prayer. The rock guitar vs. chant fight is a fight over musical taste.

    gah, I'm off my soap box now. I think I've managed to be mostly incoherent, but I tried.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    That's why we have our Church to guide us. The 'reform' as you see it as an organic development, has been necessary throughout the history, because the 'people' go too far off the track and thus weaken the true spirit of the liturgy. (people are always smart enough to find loopholes from the Church't teaching to get away from it and expands as if they are the customs of the Church. Pride! pride of their own intelligence, forgetting how limited it is. Trying to find the "faults" of the Church's teaching, instead of coorprating and implementing the instructions when it's hard to do it.) The freedom and choice that the Church gave was necessary, and the people abused the freedom last 40 years from their ignorance, ignorance from being 'too busy' doing their own things. Our Pope has a big burden to get people , who lost their trust on our Church because their abuse of the freedom, back to the right track. I'm sure he has many things he wants to do ringt away to get us back, but he also wants to save as many souls as he can. We can pray for him.

    This is what happens to me, being connected to our Church and find trust on our Holy Church, when I'm addicted to Gregorian chants.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    As much as I'm enjoying the silent canon discussion, and particularly Bruce Ford's always insightful thoughts, I'm really curious about the title issue.

    Thank you, Jeff, for your input on this. However, I'm hoping for actual legislation as it applies to the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. I shouldn't have to point out the error of your conclusion, "if this were wrong, the Pope would have corrected it," but in case I need to, you should re-watch the Washington DC Mass. Or anything under JP2's pontificate. I am likely wrong, but I don't think the pope's actions constitute binding legislation (give that he is not impeccable). What I am looking for is specific legislation wherein the option to split the Sanctus is given plain permission in the OF. Can you help?
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    Gavin, is there any specific document that prohibits it?
    No one has answered yet. Maybe there's none. And the Pope says that split is ok. Does he not know the Church's instruction if there is a prohibition? It seems that the first post was asking whether poeple can listen to the Canon in silent prayer. And the argument, I think, is about whether people can listen and pray internally. No?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,765
    GIRM:
    32. The nature of the "presidential" texts demands that they be spoken in a loud and clear voice and that everyone listen with attention. Thus, while the priest is speaking these texts, there should be no other prayers or singing, and the organ or other musical instruments should be silent.

    ---

    Don't worry that the English says "speaking"; the translators got it wrong. The Latin word means "presenting", so chanting by the priest is fine.
  • If the GIRM forbids the practice, and no SUBSEQUENT document authorizes it, the deduction that it is not authorized seems reasonable.

    Furthermore, the proscription is repeated in the 2003 Missale Romanum:

    "In fine autem praefationis iungit manus et, UNA CUM POPULO, ipsam praefationem concludit, cantans vel clara voce dicens...Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus..." p. 517

    "eaque [i.e., praefatione] conclusa, iunctis manibus, UNA CUM OMINIBUS ADSTANTIBUS, cantat vel clara voce dicit: Sanctus." p. 4
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    Chonak: I realize the practice of doing the Sanctus OVER the canon (as in the EF) is forbidden, as would be the Benedictus sung while the priest recites the post-consecration parts of the canon. The issue is whether or not it would be an abuse to pause the canon for the singing of the Benedictus, which I believe is how many churches handle split-composed Sanctuses (?)

    Mia: My understanding is that the concept of "that which is not forbidden is allowed" doesn't apply to the liturgy. I could be wrong about that, but I don't think I am.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    "---that which is not forbidden is allowed" doesn't apply to the liturgy." Maybe so. But our Pope seems to encourage.

    Did I read it wrong? here is the link again.

    http://www.ceciliaschola.org/notes/benedictonmusic.html#A_Split_Sanctus_and_Benedictus

    I know this is not a Church document, but he would really ignore it or go against it, if there's a true prohibition?
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    Thank you for the link, mia! First off, let me say that sites such as you mentioned, that identify the writings of Joseph Ratzinger with Pope Benedict, annoy me. Ratzinger's comments as a cardinal are not equal in any way to his writings in the office of Pope. Don't get me wrong; he's a brilliant theologian and liturgist, and always has been. But we should avoid misrepresenting the views of a cardinal as those of the pope. Certainly my opinions have changed greatly since 1995 (of course, I was 10 years old then!)

    More importantly, I'd have to wonder the context behind what he writes. Just as he does as pope, Ratzinger writes not only about the practice of liturgy but the form as well. It seems to me that it could go either way, and it's more likely he's saying that it would be better if the EF's rubric was imported into the OF, with the assumption that it's not currently allowed. Just like when the pope (as pope) said that the sign of peace should be moved to before the offertory; he spoke as proposing a change to the liturgy rather than an option in practice. You are right that his comments aren't binding (even as pope if he were to just say this in a book), BUT I would say that a liturgist as fantastic as Ratzinger would know if it's allowed in the OF. So if he was talking about it as a recommended practice, I'd say there's the answer. But I think it's more likely that he was saying the Mass should be changed to be more like the EF.

    Maybe there was a "dubium" submitted to the CDF on this? I should say that I really do hope this is a licit option in the Mass, but I would like to be absolutely sure before I tried to pull it off.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,765
    Regarding Bruce's point about "una cum populo", it seems that the question of the choral Sanctus has come up before.

    In this article, canonist Duane Galles notes that Musicam Sacram allows for the Sanctus to be sung by choir alone, and argues that the document's status gives it the force of law despite provisions in the GIRM or the rubrics.

    http://www.musicasacra.com/pdf/choralsanctus.pdf
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    I understand your point, Gavin. And I know he wan't Pope yet when he wrote this. But I agree 100% what he says whether he was a pope or not. This might stir up a big argument, but I think the spirit of liturgy in EF should be transmitted to OF without breaking the rules. And I cannot comprehend that what he is saying or recommending in the above article is against the rules, as you say he is a brilliant liturgist. (As you have noticed I'm not a technical person at all. But I've seen enough lawyers who became so technical and loose their common sense to bring justice. I'm not saying that the rules and techniclaity are not important in our life. We do need rule books and people who can interpret them well. But at the same time, you can read same rules and apply them in so many different ways. We can be very confused easily, if we forget the main idea behind it.)

    Also, maybe those who want to be accurate with rules should read the Church documents in latin. It seems that English translation can be so vague, and people get confused from it.

    Do we all know J.C. RatZinger's book "The Spirit of the Liturgy"? I wish that every catholic reads this.
    This really renews our faith and helps us to experience the litrugy in true spirit.
    (Did Jesus give us a new commandment, short and simple, because we get caught up with rules and forget why we follow those rules?)
  • Although I am not a Roman Catholic, I have read the book. I think I own a copy of it, in fact. I agreed with many of Ratzinger's observations but not with what he had to say about this matter.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    I want to add one more of my starnge analogy here (some might even agree with me). Jesus sometimes did things that were look like 'breaking the rules,' because many intellectuals were caught up with rules so much and forget what those rules are for. Maybe our Pope wants us to understand the Liturgy in a different level than just remembering the mass parts, rules, and knowing mass is a prayer, offereing etc. (Eventually he might straighten out our confusions of the rules also, when it's right time. We have to remember that the scope of his concern is much bigger than ours.) Also understanding what he says in his book, 'The Spirit of the Liturgy,' I think can be truly gained from experiencing the liturgy itself, not just by the intellect from reading the book.
  • BruceL
    Posts: 1,002
    I understand the objections of many not wanting to consider Ratzinger's opinions before his pontificate as like to that of the pope. However, I think one will see more attention given to the liturgy in apostolic exhortations, like Sacramentum Caritatis. It mentions a number of "suggestions" for the proper celebration of Mass. Since it comes from the pope in consultation with the bishops of the synod, then it is of somewhat greater weight (especially more than "Spirit of the Liturgy", as much as I agree with the Holy Father's sentiments in that book.)
  • Considering liturgical practice in 8th-century Rome as a model superior to norms and practices in Rome in later centuries could constitute a rejection of magisterial authority, a dubious position to occupy for any Catholic.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    I believe Father Ratzinger's 'Spirit of the Liturgy' has been consistant. It's just becoming more concrete for us after he became Pope. God sent him to protect our Church and our liturgy.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,713
    Certain of the musical parts of the liturgy do, however, belong to the people. I believe that the Sanctus is one of them

    Not really. "K'dosh, k'dosh, k'dosh" was first recited by the angels, if you recall your OT correctly.

    That happens to give a good deal of force to Mgr. Schuler's remark about 'choirs representing the Choir of Angels,' and not much force to your position.

    That said, I don't much care whether the Canon is silent or voiced. In the OF, there is a (preferred) option that the celebrant chant it.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,713
    This is a hodge podge, a pastiche, a little bit of this and that which does not, in sum, represent an aesthetic or literary unity

    Another comment which could be regarded as 'utilitarianism'...

    Ignoring mysterium has its costs, too. The Orthodox Jews, the Greeks, the Russki Orthodox all use non-current language for the Mass.

    And mixing lingua sacra with lingua vulgata is not nearly as destructive as the imposition of horrible pedestrian English as a "translation."
  • Dad29 - point well taken, and, of utilitarianism I never should wish to be accused. Also, I hope that you discerned that a sense of mysterium was a fundamental tenet of my remarks. Too, I argued, if you read me carefully, that the lingua vulgata was not NECESSARILY 'vulgar'. Hopefully, the new (and real) translation for which we all await will, along with the language of the Anglican Use (not to mention the English versions of the oriental rites), prove that.
  • Daniel Bennett Page wrote: "Considering liturgical practice in 8th-century Rome as a model superior to norms and practices in Rome in later centuries could constitute a rejection of magisterial authority, a dubious position to occupy for any Catholic."

    Do you not impute "magisterial authority" to Sacrosanctum Concilium? The document speaks of a "restoration" of the liturgy, thereby implying that certain developments had been detrimental to it. More explicitly it says, "Elements which with the passage of time came to be duplicated or were added with little advantage are now to be discarded. Where opportunity allows or necessity demands othe elements which have suffered INJURY through accidents of history are now to be restored to the earlier norm of the holy Fathers."

    Clearly, the framers of the constitution believed that the Roman Liturgy had been in a better state in 800 than it was in 1960.

    Mediator Dei, a document bearing less weight than Sacrosanctum Concilium but nonetheless claiming "magisterial authority" is sometimes cited in opposition to the restoration of ancient practices. In fact, it did not condemn the restoration of such practices because they were judged to were judged to be superior. It only condemned their restoration just because they were ancient.

    In my view the primary problem with the novus ordo is that "Elements which with the passage of time came to be duplicated or were added with little advantage were NOT SIMPLY DISCARDED. They were replaced with elements new elements to equally little advantage.