The observance of rubrics at a papal Mass is not a good precedent for practice elsewhere, simply because the Pope is the one person who does not have to abide by the GIRM; the regulation of the Roman liturgy is the sole purview of the Roman Pontiff. I think this Pope would be loath to take advantage of such a loophole, but theoretically it is there.

It is said that the voice used in reading the canon has nothing to do with musica sacra. This is not quite true, because in singing a choral Mass, the Sanctus and Benedictus take considerable time. To be able to say the canon sotto voce during the Sanctus is an economy of time and attention.

This is a very practical matter, because in some places, the choral Sanctus is not permitted--not because the GIRM seems to rule it out, but because the celebrant views it as delaying the Mass. Unfortunately, Westminster Cathedral does not usually sing the Sanctus from the choral Mass they are singing. The congregation always sings the Creed (and they sing it very well, and at a pretty quick tempo.) This leaves the Choral Mass about half sung, since the Credo is by far the longest movement.

I would contend that if the fostering of the Treasury of sacred Music includes polyphony, and that a substantial part of that repertory is Mass Ordinaries, and that the five-movement Mass Ordinary is an integral piece, not just scattered pieces to be selected from at will, then the performance of the entire Mass Ordinary should really be taken seriously.

I think one of the things posters most often accuse the NPM folks of, is not following the rules. Do we want to be open to the same charge being thrown back at us? It also seems true that some folks so pine for the EF mass, they want to make the OF into as close a copy of it as possible. They are different. We should respect the integrity of both forms of mass.

I don't think the OF is transitory or dying. It is the form of the mass currently in use, whether in English or Latin. Some may not like it, but that's what it is. Granted, some in authority could do a much better job of seeing that the rubrics are enforced. But even if the OF is in Latin and celebrated with due solemnity and dignity, there is that contingent that will never consider it good enough.

Congratulations on the vicar. You are fortunate, indeed.

The example of the Pope's Mass at Westminster Cathedral not only included a Gospel procession into the nave and the pulpit, but this was accompanied by a Gregorian alleluia sung only be the choir (something seemingly not permitted by GIRM). There is a technicality: the Pope can dispense from any obligation of the GIRM, and we cannot.

There is a slight problem with the Sanctus and the audible canon. Our practice is to sing the entire Sanctus and then the priest sings the entire canon. Some find this singing of the Sanctus to be too long. But there is another issue: the Benedictus was composed to be sung after the consecration, and there is often quite a change in tone; as one of my choir said of the Benedictus of the Byrd Masses: "When you hear the Benedictus, you know that something has happened.

I have sometimes been told that the Sanctus "holds up the Mass." Conceptually, this is incorrect; the Sanctus is a part of the Mass; there is a good question of how long it should be, but the Sanctus is integral to the Mass and is not holding it up, just as the sermon does not hold up the Mass.

Sure, let the tail wag the dog. Liturgy made the servant of music, a musician's dream! Feh.

Please note that this is one of the key conceptual differences in the musical structure of the old and new forms of the rite. In the old form, the Benedict was always done in the proper place, as the last half of the Sanctus immediately before the Canon. It was simply said by the priest; you wouldn't hear it or notice it. The problem is that people who hear the choir spin out some five-minute Sanctus and Benedictus think they are listening to the liturgy, when in reality the liturgical Sanctus was over ages ago and now they are only listening to a part of the para-liturgy, sometimes closely and sometimes only distantly related to the action of the Mass. This is the same reason why people get confused at seeing the priest walk over and sit down in the middle of the Gloria -- shouldn't he be standing for this glorious hymn of praise? Oh, wait, he already finished the "hymn of praise" and is now just biding his time for the choir to catch up so that he can get a word in edgewise.

For all the bad press that "active participation in the liturgy" gets, I think it is important to observe that one of the key insights of the reformers was that we are not merely talking about stressing "active participation in the liturgy," we are talking about stressing "active participation in the liturgy." Active participation in the para-liturgy is all well and good -- sing along from your Jubilate Deos and so forth -- but from a theological standpoint the action in which the congregation is called to participate, in a way proper to their station, should be the same action in which the priest is participating. When this fundamental connection breaks down, then you wind up with the spectacle of a sort of sacred opera or oratorio going on in the nave, with the priest butting in from time to time to provide, as J. Ratzinger said, "a kind of periodic recitative" with his chants. In that sort of atmosphere, of course, it hardly makes a whit of difference whether you perform vivisection on the Sanctus to excise its second half and move it, from the position before the Canon which it had occupied for a millennium or more, to someplace where the Church had never contemplated putting it.

That might have been fine in the old Mass -- well, it was not fine, but the increasing chasm between the liturgy and the para-liturgy meant that considerations of musical convenience and aesthetic taste (dramatic music, "you know that something has happened") were allowed to trump the natural and sensible form of the liturgy -- but it is quite certainly not acceptable today. The liturgy that the people are listening to, and hopefully singing, is the same liturgy that is going on at the altar. One may or may not agree with the trope that "active participation means listening attentively," but even if it is true, then we must recognize that one of the chief components of the reform was that when the people are listening intently, actively participating, it ought to be the liturgy in which they are participating. No more sacred oratorios while the priest carries out the "mysteries" by himself on his own schedule. (And that's why the Church calls them "mysteries," right? Because they must be sufficiently obscured from the people as to remain "mysterious"?).

People scoff when the reformers say that the people should be more engaged in the action of the Mass, and rightly so when this is misunderstood as implying that most people should be carrying things around, proclaiming things from the ambo, and handling the sacred species. The reform, indeed, does not mean that the people must be singing to be participating. What it means is that when they are participating, be it by singing or by prayerful listening, it should be in the same thing the priest is doing as their leader and representative, and not in something he "really" finished five minutes before, unbeknownst to everyone else.

In the old form, the Benedict was always done in the proper place, as the last half of the Sanctus immediately before the Canon. It was simply said by the priest; you wouldn't hear it or notice it.

Really?

So what you're telling us is either: 1) the period from Palestrina through 1969 was not part of "always" or: 2) that the Popes during that entire time (save Paul VI) were unable to fathom "actuosa participatio".

My. That's quite a claim!

Your thesis is grounded in ultra-utilitarianism. The Easterns, who arguably preserve much more 'ancient' rites than do the Romans, would be confused by your assertions. It's likely that even the Cistercians would be, too.

I'm still catching up on this thread… but with regards to the discussion on "active participation," I'd remind folks that there was a really interesting dissertation on the subject (by Walter W. Whitehouse) discussed over at the Café this past summer.

The silent canon is an abuse that has been condemned from the earliest days. It has been an issue in both the western and eastern churches. Why, I don't know. I have heard "creeping clericalism" for years, but whether that is the appeal behind it is beyond me. I agree that some glorious music has been composed in the west that complements it beautifully. However, the silent canon was enough of a liturgical abuse that the emperor Justinian condemned it in his own day. I sometimes believe there are no new abuses, just the same ones institutionalized again and again.

I had read the first volume of Whitehouse's dissertation earlier, and today I downloaded and speed-read the second volume. It's an amazing work.

Well, not to press on a point too much, but if some abuses become accepted over hundreds of years (like the organ used in sacred liturgy, for example) it's not properly called an abuse any longer but rather a custom or tradition.

Indeed! I guess that's why things are subjected to 'the test of time'.
Which brings us back to the idea of layering prayers.

For whatever reason, this subject tends to periodically come up on the forum under a topic like, "Let's make the OF like the EF."

From what I read, it appears that the silent canon was considered an abuse until the seventh century. It began to appear more often in the western mass after that time.

However, I think there is another issue here. Did Vatican II in its reforms, consider it a flaw or incorrect practice that should be removed from the liturgy? Of course, to those who look to the 1962 mass as a standard to imitate, the answer would be clear. To those who don't accept that mass as any kind of standard, the removal of the silent canon is a necessary correction to an earlier erroneous practice.

Granted, in large churches before the invention of amplification, the canon would have been perceived as silent for any practical purpose.

Better the music than than an extended sermon, that's for sure. ;-) There would be no issue in the EF, but the OF is not structured that way. The Sanctus and Benedictus don't exist as separate entities anymore. I am one of those folks who has no desire to turn the OF into the EF. I expend my efforts on getting better music into the OF, not remaking the OF into something else.

He-he-he! :-)

Well said, Liam! Although I must admit, I like CHGiffen's silent canon. :-)

If my memory serves, Cardinal Ratzinger has reminded us, "The Council did not reform the Liturgy: it ordered its revision."

Liam, while I want to consider your assertions, using the term 'tedious' to describe a prayer millions of fellow Catholics join their hearts to kind of chips away at your credibility.
Citations and or sources would also help.
Pedro, thanks for yours. Interesting.

I understand the OF is currently predominant. That's not the question.
Is or was the silent canon truly an abuse?
Caricatures, anecdotes and personal memories vary widely. Some people remember congregations praying fervently from their missals, others remember differently.

I would hope for sources to confidently accompany such assertions.
Otherwise ones claim may look like it's mainly based on their own preferences and decades old memories. That may be interesting, but it does not make for compelling, fact-based discussion.

"However, the mass was neither perfect nor sublime, or the Council would not have seen a need to revise it. "

???

Other reasons aside, they believed the Mass needed revision because they wanted to connect with people in the modern era, not because it may or may not have been perfect of sublime.

MaryCarr

My use of tedious was a reference to the work a priest would have had to do in that evolving context. My apologies for the equivocation.

In the Order of Mass as printed in the previous Roman Missal (2nd edition), there was a rubric printed under the Sanctus that stated:

In all Masses the priest may say the eucharistic prayer in an audible voice.

Thus, it was permissible during the time of the previous Roman Missal to say the Eucharistic Prayer quietly in the Ordinary Form.

This rubric is deleted from the current 3rd edition.

The mass came out of the Western Roman Empire, and was affected and corrupted by the complete collapse of civilization. The Dark Ages and the Renaissance added accretions and excesses as well. The accumulation of these over the centuries, caused a council of the Church at Vatican II to find it necessary to correct and revise the mass.

"Affected and corrupted"? "Accretions and Excesses"?

What you need is a bit more drama.

The first "revision" of the 1962 Mass was published in 1965. Remember that? It was almost identical with the '62 Rite.

You seem to think that there is a "pure" Roman rite someplace--so long as it's back before the Middle Ages. That line of thinking went out of style with the retirement of R. Weakland and/or the death of Bugnini.

The "second" (or "third" Confiteor was recited by the altar-boys immediately prior to Communion; the priest then re-said the "Misereatur" prayer (an absolution).

That was removed by John XXIII when the 1962 Rite was approved; ergo, it does NOT belong in the EF Mass. However, lots of people think otherwise.

By the way, in the same revision, the "Benedicamus Domino" dismissal was reduced from 'every Sunday in Lent' to only a few occasions/year.

Dos3n't anyone find it strange and weird that we have two different masses with different rules that don't apply to the other mass!
For the EF no vernacular hymns and canon said quietly. For the OF the quiet canon is a big no no!
I recall Pope B arguing for the cross pollinization of the two rites, I think it would be brilliant if they were allowed to influence each other.

Ghmus, Stulte,

I'll propose a manner in which the two could influence each other:

the EF could teach the OF what the rite should look like, and the OF could teach the EF something about the virtue of quick obedience to valid instruction by cooperating with EF's advice.