"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?

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.

"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.

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.

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.

"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

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.

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'".

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.

"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.

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.

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?

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

"---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?

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

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.

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.)

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.

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."

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.