it says nothing about standing whatsoever

Have you ever sung the Te Deum Laudamus sitting? Rome is thinking of this when they legislate that all sing the post-communion song of praise. The Graduale Simplex lists the Te Deum Laudamus, the Te Decet Laus, and the Te Laudamus for this time at Mass. I've never sung any of these in any posture except standing.

Fr. Ruff:

There are still some serious flaws in the document. Why would SttL recommend additional tropes for the Agnus Dei when Liturgiam Authenticam specifically forbids adding anything to the official text of the Roman Missal? The Agnus Dei does not bear an asterisk that says "these or similar words". Furthermore, whatever became of the powerpoint presentation that was used to help formulate SttL? I would like to see the original version of SttL to see what it contained. It seems to me that something changed from its original state.

I don't think anyone is blaming SttL for the introduction of AD tropes, but it does give wrongful permission for them to be used, thereby enabling people to use them... Now they are nearly impossible to argue against, since people will just say "But what about SttL?"

I do, but then people still say "But it's our bishops! Do you think they could have gotten it wrong?"

Benedictgal:

There is no "original version" of SttL so I'm not sure what you're talking about. There were over a dozen drafts, with multiple changes between each drafts, and then a final version was approved. That's what went to press and that's what we have.

On the legality of changing words, I suspect the issue is that, in the great history of the Catholic Church, different cultures and mindsets interpret legal questions quite differently. Mediterranean cultures approach the issue differently than many in the US. I'll give just two anecdotes.

A Protestant observer at Vatican II went to dinner with three Spanish bishops on a Friday. He carefully ordered fish so as not to give offense, and was shocked that all three bishops ordered meat. But for the good bishops it went without saying that the rule didn't apply when celebrating an important council vote. On the day (pre-V2) a Roman seminary posted on the bulletin board the new ruling that henceforth only one collect was to be used, it was followed by the listing of the three collects to be used at Mass that day.

I think for many people, the Agnus Dei tropes are such a good idea liturgically that the strict legal interpretation just doesn't cut it. Especially when the great tradition of the medieval Church was to add tropes (locally, unapproved) to virtually EVERYTHING in the Mass.

And then, of course, we have the teachings of Our Lord, in his discussion with the Pharisees, giving His understanding of ritual rules and laws.

No one is going to get the whole Catholic Church to follow every text in the missal, anymore than anyone is going to bring order to the traffic in the city of Rome. Good heavens, just think of the German Singmessen in use for centuries. The recent legalism in conservative US Catholic circles is fairly unique to us, and incomprehensible to many deeply traditional Catholics in Europe.

awr

On the other hand, Liam, if people were substituting tropes for "you take away the sins of the world," then the criticism would be that these liberal priests don't believe in sin and are trying to suppress any mention of it.

With all due respect, Fr. Ruff, we're not talking about controlling traffic patterns in Rome, we're talking about restoring what was horribly lost following the Council, and ultimately the welfare of immortal souls, which are shaped and guided by how we pray (lex orandi, lex credendi).

Since we're using anecdotes to buttress our arguments, let's not speak of what they're doing in the Mediterranean, or in Germany, or the exchanges between Spanish bishops at a dinner, since SttL does not even apply to them. Let's talk about what's happening right here in the U.S.

Not far from my parish, there is a parish with a priest who thinks that it's acceptable to not follow every text in the missal, thinking as you do that Jesus in his condemnation of the Pharisees would condemn us for our care, attention and devotion to the ritual rules and laws. When this priest offers "Mass", which it turns out is not Mass at all, but some odd formulation of what he thinks Mass should be, he does not "say the black and do the red". Rather, at the consecration of the host, he says, "Take this, all of you and eat it. This is Jesus' body, which is given up for you." Invalid. Period. When he attempts his failed consecration of the wine, which remains wine when he's done, he says, "It will be shed for you and for all people . . . " Again, invalid. He has now, out of his pridefulness, rendered the Mass invalid with the addition of words not proscribed by the Church, and in doing so creates the opportunity for scandal and confusion among the Faithful, putting the welfare of their immortal souls in grave peril.

In our own parish, we have had occasions where consecrated hosts were found horribly profaned - half chewed, pulled apart and thrown on the floor or left on the pew. The lack of deep understanding of the Real Presence, thanks to the efforts of many within the "spirit of the Council" reformers, has caused people to not take seriously their actions at Mass. In addition to the corrected translation of the Missal, reception of communion on the tongue would go a long way in correcting this gravely sinful profanation, but liberals view this as overly-traditional, backward and unnecessary.

How we pray forms how we believe, and by watering down, simplifying or stripping away that which supports the sense of mystery deforms that belief and opens the door for sacrilege and profanation. By suggesting that following the rubrics and saying the words proscribed by the Church is somehow legalistic and unnecessary or impossible to attain is to open ourselves to these kinds of abuses, relegate our Catholic identity to insignificance and hasten the ruination of our society.

But, perhaps those who think this way are just a few overly-legalistic conservatives concerned about ritual, who leave "deeply traditional European Catholics" and progressives confused.

Perhaps you are right; nobody should be expected to do what the Church asks. We should comfort ourselves in knowing that we have the teachings of Our Lord, in his discussion with the Pharisees, which gives us His understanding of ritual rules and laws. However, in doing so we excuse ourselves from being faithful Catholics.

But Fr. Ruff, you're still missing something. In 2005, Redepmptonis Sacramentum made it very clear that this practice must stop (see below). Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, the word "reprobate" is the strongest possible word they could have used in this situation.

Honestly, it doesn't really matter if the spanish bishops ate meat, or what the people did in the middle ages. Here and now in the universal church, this practice is clearly not allowed, and if you ask me, there's no way to argue for it in good conscience. How, may I ask, can it be a "good idea liturgically" if the church speaks so strongly against it?

And concerning the Pharisees, Our Lord was NOT against their following of the law and the ritual worship of the Israelites. He was against them going over the top and forcing people to follow the laws that actually only applied to priests.

No one is going to get the whole Catholic Church to follow every text in the missal...

Just as no one is going to stop all of the murders and rapes in the world. Yet we should still strive for both: every priest following the missal, and eliminating crime against the dignity of the human person.

And why in the world are we comparing our worship of the most high God to controlling traffic?

59. The reprobated practice by which Priests, Deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease. For in doing thus, they render the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy unstable, and not infrequently distort the authentic meaning of the Liturgy.

David, I don't think traditional sacramental theology would consider those Masses invalid, as you do. For what it's worth, keep in mind that, according to our best information, the words of our Lord ("This is my body...", "This is my blood...") were not found in any eucharistic prayer before the 4th century. That's not an argument for omitting or changing those words - something I would never do. But we have to be careful about calling something invalid too hastily - especially when that would be an inaccurate judgment within traditional Catholic sacramental theology. Everything you described would be illicit - not a good thing, but hardly invalid.

For the rest, I think the other comments above, all well-intentioned I'm sure, either miss my point or else serve to illustrate my point that we have mindsets talking past each other. There are important distinctions to make between serious abuses, unserious abuses, and "praeter legem" practices which really aren't an abuse. To lump everything into the first category is a problem in mindset.

Pardon me for sharing one more anecdote, then I'll stop. When I was at the Holy See (this was with Msgr. Mronoey) to discuss SttL with the CDW, I heard this from an official of the curia. In the drafting of Redemptionis Sacramentum, one curial official said that we should avoid thinking that adherance to law will solve everything, and it might be good for everyone at the table to 'fess up to the ways they've bent the law. The speaker then volunteered his particular "violation" - in his country there are no missalettes and at daily Mass it's hard for people to recall and repeat the Responsorial Psalm refrain after it is spoken out, so when the reforms came he just shortened up what's given in the official lectionary. The name of the speaker is Joseph Ratzinger.

awr

Disobedience born of pride, IIRC, was the Original Sin.

Little has changed, I see.

One curial official said that we should avoid thinking that adherance to law will solve everything...

Indeed, he's right. But it's an important step.

Fr. Ruff,

Why don't you ask Pope Benedict his opinion on this. I have a feeling you are taking his quote out of context. Anyways, I can possibly see the practical reasoning for shortening the antiphon, but for adding tropes? There's no practical advantage, other than making people feel good.

What good is achieved by modifying the words of the Agnus Dei?

Mark, there is no real benefit to tinkering around with the Mass as though it were your own personal property. If we cannot be faithful in what some may regard small matters, then, we cannot be trusted in larger ones.

One can use any of the invocations to address Christ outside of the confines of the sacred liturgy, but, when it comes to a liturgical act of worship, we need to say the black and do the red. In this case both the black and the red indicate that we need to say what's in the printed section and there is no provision for "these or similar words."

The problem with the two above above posts, Michelle and Ben, is that you are answering a different question than the one that was asked before. The question whether varying the invocation has any conceivable merit (it does) is quite separate from the question whether it is allowed. It is thus nonsensical to answer the first question saying, "There can be no imaginable merit to this -- it's not allowed!"

With respect, Ben, to your quotation, I fear that Fr. Ruff's posts probably better reflect what was expected by the authorities who wrote it. I'm reminded of the signs in the buses in Naples (or was it Rome?) that said "All passengers must be seated. Standing passengers must hold on to the railings." More to the point, I'm reminded of the discussion of how rubrics and instructions of this sort were traditionally viewed, from the American Ecclesiastical Review of January, 1900, that I posted on here. Here's a portion:

The decision does not assume that the inquirer wants the Church to say what she might tolerate if there were good reason. If she said so, except in rare cases, her general legislation would soon give place to a tissue of exceptional applications of the law under the pressure of scrupulous or wrong-headed inquirers. The Church is much more tolerant than the many detailed decrees which constantly issue from the Congregations would make it appear. But if people ask needless questions, they are apt to get strong answers; for they have no right to expect the Church to make little of her laws because some individual finds it inconvenient to follow them under all circumstances. Confessors and spiritual directors have much the same experience with inquiring penitents, and they know how impossible it is to meet every problem of a nervous subject.

Now, it is a general rule in liturgical matters — and it is well to remember it before asking any questions in Rome — that the prescriptions of the ritual books are to be observed as they stand, "non autem rigorose, sed spectata decenti consuetudine." ["not, however, rigorously, but observing decent custom."] It is true that consuetudo or custom, if contrary to the rubrics, is to be abolished — "sed prudenter;" ["but prudently";] but a custom not contrary to the rubrics, although not wholly or expressly conformable to the same, may be tolerated. In such cases, however, we cannot expect Rome to discredit the general law by paying the individual claiming the right to this toleration the compliment of advertising it by a general decree, which many persons would forthwith construe into an abrogation or change of the standing rubrics.

In case you are puzzled by the notion of a Roman decree that might appear to say something absolute on its face, but which was not expected by its author or anyone else to really be absolute in all cases that it seems like it would cover, please see my as-yet-unanswered question in Francis' Batman! thread. And yes, as I'm intimately aware, this is definitely not how we Americans are accustomed to making, interpreting, and enforcing law.

I'd rather have incense and adherence to the rubrics.

Ah, and so would I!

Whatever the validity or strength of your arguments, I would not be so quick to tell two people who work full time in Sacred Music, one of whom is a priest with much liturgical experience and training, that they "do not get it," especially when you yourself do not even hold employment in Sacred Music or Liturgy.

PGA, I've worked as a church musician for over 45 years, in all likelihood longer than Fr. Ruff has been ordained.

Wanna play with ME?

Then you'll have to play using the documents as written, not as "emanations and penumbras" may lead you.

Let's begin here. My children always--unFAILingly--told me that "Bobby gets to do that...." when I told them that such-and-such was verboten.

I don't give a rotten fig that the French law theory is "what is not forbidden is allowed," nor that the German law theory is "what is not allowed is forbidden."

But I respect your right to be "Bobby." Bring it!

PGA, this is not about me, nor should it be about leveling personal attacks against me. The documents are very specific. There is no room for wiggle room in this instance in either version of the Roman Missal. One can be ordained and work on sacred music, but, that doesse not excuse anyone from a lack of fidelity.

It is sad that when one cannot prove a point with the documents as a source, the individual has to resort to personal attacks to deflect from the real issue.

"The problem with the two above above posts, Michelle and Ben, is that you are answering a different question than the one that was asked before. The question whether varying the invocation has any conceivable merit (it does) is quite separate from the question whether it is allowed. It is thus nonsensical to answer the first question saying, "There can be no imaginable merit to this -- it's not allowed!""


To me this is "personalizing" the Mass. Why should anyone walk out of Mass intending to go to their pastor and complain that he only says the words of the Mass while in Parish X they insert their own prayers at the Agnus Dei?

Every attack against saying the Mass as it is written to be said is an attack on the Chuch and on Sacred Music. One can spend years in it and be actively working....to destroy it.

Experience and Education does not a Catholic make... it is fidelity to the Church in every regard.

Would you do a whole lot of reasearch on the internet regarding bioethics and then go tell a doctor why what he's doing is wrong?

Would you do internet research and read books about ANY job, position, or career, and go tell people actually engaged in that career why their choices are wrong?

Sorry, that just really rubs me the wrong way. I've spent a lot of years studying music and liturgy, in many ways, both formal and informal. Add to that my 15 years of experience in the field and I feel that I do in fact know better than someone who has read a lot of Cardinal Arinze quotes, or who has gone to a forum and read a poster's comments on what the "reform of the reform" mean.

This is the same logic in my last job that had cantors opposing my introduction of chant and sacred music because they had "read some NPM literature" and "dabbled" around in church music, cantoring and what not, and knew better than me. Sorry, but I'm the professional here.

That may strike some as arrogant. I'm simply treating this as a profession AND a call.

Would you do a whole lot of reasearch on the internet regarding bioethics and then go tell a doctor why what he's doing is wrong?

If he was a catholic doctor joining an existing conversation about sterilization, piped in and said he was in support of it, yes, I'd tell him he was wrong.

In this situation, all those involved know about the appropriate documents, and they know what the church says about it, yet they still support it, and publicly state so in a discussion about the very issue. There are some areas that are clear cut, such as this. Professionals can be wrong.

Gavin:

Baptism is the effortless perfect start. Then you gotta do the hard part and live it out.

Charles:

Thanks for the example. I guess if the disciples, Jesus and the writers of the Gospels argued with each other, we are just carrying on the tradition.