This is an interesting topic. I've seen this too many times by outstanding celebrants -- people with a deep history and vast learning -- to think that the issue can be so quickly dismissed with a sentence from the GIRM (the GIRM would also seem to rule out a choral Sanctus). Maybe it is forbidden but when a tradition of many hundreds of years stands as precedent, the issue is generally more complicated that can be resolved by one line from a descriptive and non-normative document.

Perhaps this discussion is about the extent to which the two forms of the Rite can inform each each other, and so develop?

Does anyone know whether the Pope pronounced the canon audibly at Pentecost 2009 when he celebrated Mass at St. Peter's with an orchestra and choir performing a Haydn Missa Solemnis.

Here's a clip toward the end of that Mass.

Oh: here's the full video; let's see how it proceeds.
..... OK, the Sanctus starts at 1:28 into the video, and is immediately followed by the Benedictus, then the audiblecanon.

Comment deleted by author.

The question came up the other day when discussing my upcoming wedding Mass with the priest, MC and musician... We're doing a choral Mass (Byrd - which is short, and thus waiting for the Sanctus to end is no big-problem), but my mind went immediately the the Colloquium where such a thing was done where, perhaps, it shouldn't have been. We agreed that the celebrant would wait until the Sanctus and Benedictus were done until he began reciting the Canon (in Latin), however I wondered what the Holy Father did last Pentecost, which was graciously answered by chonak. Thank you all.

Another interesting question -
It appears in the Ordinary Form that if a Wedding Mass is celebrated during a Sunday Mass the order is:
-Gospel
-Homily
-Vows and Rings and Stuff
-General Intercessions
-Creed

Everything I've seen points to a flipping of the Intercessions and Creed if a marriage is celebrated.
Anyone have any idea why...?

Charles in Cen, so a Viennese Mass is an "untenable form" and "alien" despite the Pope's own devotion to it, and the Msgr. Schuller's having endured 40 years of slings and arrows to keep it alive? And because Todd, who wasn't even there, complained about the report of the silent canon -- used consistently by Fr. Robert Skeris in the OF -- we are supposed to be devastated? And all of this amounts to the "shooting ourselves in the foot"??

Did you wake on the wrong side of the bed? Good grief. It is hard enough to do this work without this kind of relentless carping. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to pull together a full orchestral Mass in a colloquium with back-to-back Masses all week and do it with no employees and no budget? Do you not understand how difficult it is to be on the production side of this and yet how easy it is to sit in the peanut gallery and criticize?

If there is any shooting going on, it is usually the case that someone is holding the gun and pulling the trigger.

Does audible include a requirement that an electronic sound system be used in a large church building?
If so, how loud would it need to be turned up?
Must it always be at one level?
I am trying neither to be snarky or ironic here.
I just wonder about the implied requirement for a sound system, which I utterly reject in an indoor liturgical space.

It's a rationalization for the practice. As noted, other prayers of the Mass are offered to God directly, and are not sotto voce. Moreover, note that actually silent prayer should suffice under that rationalization, but was in fact forbidden: it had to be somewhat audible (basically, in some way by the servers).

I can offer another rationalization: that it developed in the period when Latin was ebbing as a lingua franca (pun intended) - in late antiquity, the silent canon was regarded as an abuse, but you see its more widespread adoption in the Carolingian era - and the focus of rubrics was on what was happening in the sanctuary, allowing for greater and greater detachment from the congregation. Why waste breath using a proclamatory tone for a long-winded prayer in language increasing portions of people in the nave would no longer understand well (however conversant in Latin many may have remained in shorter prayers, it's rather obvious from the development of vernaculars that extended use of Latin was happening in a shrinking circle of people). But, when the silent canon became a polemical issue among Reformers, post-hoc rationalizations were put to good use.

As for why the OF prescribes a more audible (if not necessarily amplified) Canon: to assist in actual participation by the faithful. It's rather simple. Following along with a missal is not the only way to do that; listening is equally valid. (I am not a person who kvells at the idea of people following along with hand missals; but, by the same token, I know the actual participation of others is more aurally and less visually based).

What I wonder is why some feel there is a need for a silent canon to be revived. Is it that they feel the audible canon obstructs the preconciliar practice that permitted the Sanctus and Benedictus to be sung *during* the recitation of the silent canon? If so, that seems to be the tail wagging the dog.

Liam's touched on an important point: the prayer is long-winded, and it is the same in the vernacular. Perhaps that's part of the appeal of the canon sotto voce. Whatever are the merits of 'hiding' part of the canon, it does seem to be a tradition in most of the Eastern churches. Perhaps someone who knows whether it's universal may say so.

I love the sung canon in the OF - it still rings in my ears from before I was a Catholic. However, I'm deeply touched by the silent canon of the EF, and also intrigued by the musical complexity the silent canon gave rise to, the very two theaters sometimes denounced. Without the two theaters, the result before linear and insufficiently complex, almost flattened. I'm not making a case for the silent canon based on its musical implications but I do think that the musical implications strengthen the case for maintaining a theater for the celebrant and separate one for the music. As a musician, I certainly sense a more relaxed and prayerful sense of space in the EF.

I believe the reason for the revival of the Canon said/sung aloud was that it is the more ancient practice. The silent Canon was a later Frankish development which crept its way into the Roman Rite. Of course, I'm greatly oversimplifying things. I'm also not advocating returning to ancient practices just because they are ancient, but I think that was the reason for the revival. I do personally prefer hearing the Canon sung, though.

I don't really see a problem with liberality here (so kill me). Yes, the GIRM, but there are many things in the GIRM that are purely descriptive and non-normative. Look at the Mass with the Pope in Westminster two days ago. Compare to the GIRM. Hardly any of that stuff is in there at all! The GIRM is a helpful description of a conventional situation, but it is not intended to be a comprehensive look at all possibilities in the Roman Rite. I'm thinking here of the Gospel procession to the middle of the nave, for example. There is nothing about that in the GIRM, but I recall a situation recently where a pastor cracked down on an associate pastor for doing this, citing the GIRM. But here watching the Pope, we see the exact same procession. My point is that we can get into a crazy form of legalism if we read the GIRM as if it is some sort of binding Constitution of the rubrics of the Mass.

Jeffrey,

That's all blithe and bonny, but this is not an issue where the GIRM or rubrics are silent, and cherry-picking what one thinks is "purely descriptive and non-normative" is a great way to undercut the credibility of one's argument. And remember, that approach will always be a two-edged sword.

i don't like when people pretend the Pope is at fault for not following the GIRM. it's not that simple.

Jeffrey,

Your finding it "ridiculous" speaks volumes. That you might find it ultimately not the most persuasive interpretation is one thing, but to ridicule it - treating it as essentially unreasonable (rather than reasonable but ultimately not most persuasive) - is to essentially remove yourself from serious conversation by serious rhetorical overkill.

do you really imagine that the Catholic Church would abolish the use of the choral Sanctus?

I think that, considering the last 50 years of Church history (notwithstanding the recent liberalizations of older forms), the idea that the Church would abolish any particular thing, regardless of its beauty, usefulness, or pedigree, should hardly be considered far-fetched.

The obsession with having every detail seen and heard by everyone in the OF is I think reason why a silent cannon would be a good thing.
Also if one is approaching an unfathomable all powerful God to offer a sacrifice, it would be a healthy natural reaction to cautiously lower ones voice, its appropriate to not charge up to the alter and loudly announce to the Lord without "fear and trembling" what you expect of him.
the priest is praying to God which is why it isn't necessary for everyone to hear and see everything, but it doesn't mean that its the reason for a silent cannon.

That being said I think you haft to do what the GIRM says until it says something different.

Is it possible the the GIRM, being the General Instruction specifically deals with the "normal" situation of Mass (average parish, average Sunday, average community), and provides guidelines for that purpose- but could, effectively, be preempted by special occasion (of place, of time, of who is celebrating, of who is gathered, of why the Mass is being offered)?

Just a crazy idea...

Adam

The Roman way would not think of it in terms of pre-emption (that would be very Anglospheric, not Roman), because that would imply a norm above the norm. As I've noted many times in many places over many years, the Roman way is that exceptions in non-essential matters occur from time to time (not chronically), but the exceptions are not themselves norms. Besides, the pre-emption idea is one that many people would happily use to drive a truck through the GIRM in many respects. Exceptions occur from time to time; the norm remains the norm. People from an Anglospheric legal background cannot stand this state of affairs, and want it codified and made normative because this approach is alien to our sense of How Rules Should Work.

"Exceptions occur from time to time; the norm remains the norm."

I'd ltruly love to follow that statement.
And I sincerely like to know in NO which one is norm, singing Hymns INSTEAD of Propers or Psalms from Roman Gradual, or anything you want at the Entrance, Offertory and Communion.
(or maybe it's from Americans who like to give equal weights on exceptions as norms, as in English translations of GIRM?)

There are distinctions to be made: there is a concept in Catholic canon law of "customs contrary to law", which become acceptable practices if they are not inherently wrong, if they are approved by the competent authority and last long enough to become established. (There may be some other requirements too.) One can probably make a plausible argument for the legitimacy of the (not silent but) sotto voce Canon, the separated Benedictus, etc., on that basis. It's probably rather harder to make an argument on that basis for the use of giant puppets during a Mass. (Note: I am not a canonist and do not play one on TV.)

According to my GIRM (2003), No. 4 option is "A suitable litrugical song similarly approved by the Conferences of Bishops of the diocean Bishop."
I truly hope this is what's happening as the norm in local parishes.(Bishops seem a bit behind in approving many contemporary songs, although many of them enjoy having them in Mass.)

I'm not saying breaking rules are ok, but I think there can be exceptions in NO that follow the traditional practice that has been inherited to us in our Church, and silent canon at the Colloquium is one of those exception . Colloquium Mass followed the rules and traditions at the most in the given context, and I don't see this is a problem.
Our Pope told us to interpret those instructions in the light of our tradition (not ancient practices of the early Church.)
Many of us also know this quote, "What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church's faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place."

GIRM also mentions about the congregation singing at least part of Kyrie and Agnus Dei. So then it's not only choral Sanctus we cannot have, but other beautiful choral Ordinaries, as well as silent canon we cannot have in NO to follow the rules?

"Singing hymns instead of the propers is expressly included within the corners of the norms, not an exception to the norms."


IF you choose not to follow the historical practice of the church, singing the proper in Latin from the GR, or if not that from the GS, or if not that by use of psalm tones, you may sing a hymn. It's foolish to say that hymns are the norm. Hymns are the norm of foolish people who have seized The Mass and made it their mass, with a small m.

The fact that it is pervasive and has totally eliminated choices 1,2 or 3 prove that it is popular and was a big mistake. No one anticipated that Cathedrals would totally abandon the common practice of being leaders of the diocese and have what a Julliard voice student referred to as Minstrel Masses at all Masses and effectively ban choirs by saddling them directors of music of dubious abilities. If they can read music at all.

Vatican II did not intend to remove the practices, but rather to expand them. The expansion has created a MacDonalds atmosphere and management. Well, MacDonalds at breakfast, something they are totally incapable of doing in a Fast Food manner....

The riches of being the first FAST FOOD restaurant have not extended to breakfast time.

At most parishes it's breakfast time, ignoring: "What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church's faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place."

Exactly! The "spirit" of documents like Summorum Pontificum (and it's really more of a renewal and indeed a movement than a document, isn't it?) dramatically outweighs crusty, boring old rubrical workhorses like the GIRM. You can tweak, bend, and even outright break those lame rules and regulations that Rome never should have approved in the first place, provided you're sufficiently confident that what you're doing is really better and more in keeping with the spirit of the Mass.

Hmm, now where have I heard that theme before ...? ;-)

Perhaps. But to me, the two positions you have (as I read your comments) recently espoused -- namely, (1) the GIRM is just a description of what people usually do, not an instruction or rule; and (2) the spirit, properly interpreted, of various documents trumps the rules expressly given for the liturgy -- fall, as squarely as I can imagine, in the category of "Be careful what you wish for; you just might get it."