Homilies are encouraged now, and in the past they were up to the discretion of the priest. I don't know that they are mandated anywhere, but they are almost always present. I remember when they were rarely given.

The silent canon was an aberration to begin with, even being forbidden in the early days of the church. It is like making the sign of the cross from left to right, instead of right to left. One of the popes (Innocent III I think) even forbade that practice. Kneeling, for example, originated after the Black Death when Europeans became more penitential. The Council of Nicea commanded us to stand with the risen Christ during the canon. People have a tendency to follow fads and do as they please. Over time, those illicit practices become the norm.

Remember also that some practices in the "Traditional Mass" only go back as far as Trent. I don't look to the "Traditional Mass" as a standard to conform to, since it was in ways a radical departure from then current traditional practices. Practices are merely practices, and they do change from time to time. However, it is a worthy goal you and your schola are working to accomplish.

"with the option of singing various parts (Introit, Gradual, etc.) not always the first preference in the rubrics."

Could you site your source for that, please? I have seen arguments that said the choice was equal between them, which I do not agree with, but do not recall where it is not the first preference, aside from the RESP PSALM.

Thank you all, but as Jeffrey mentioned above, I'd like to know what is NOT allowed, not what is added. (from EF to OF)

The question is an excellent one. The more I look into this, the less i see that it explicitly prohibited. I'm not going to take down the comments earlier in this thread but I will say to any possible googlers that they are filled with misleading information. I'm not going to take time to go through them point by point. if the authors insist that I do, I would rather pull the posts.

And you wonder why most musicians and the people are thoroughly confused. I follow the Ordo for the Southeastern United States. If it says do something, I do it. It if doesn't, I don't. Keep in mind also, that half or better of many congregations have never seen a "Traditional Mass." That kind of makes it hard to compare the two.

To the best of my knowledge, the prayers at the foot of the altar and the entrance rite appear very different from what I remember as a child. The Sanctus is no longer divided into two parts and everything stops while it is sung. The after mass prayers to St. Michael and the last gospel, as we used to call it, disappeared in 1965 in my part of the country. These are the major differences I remember.

I, too, am having a hard time saying what is expressly prohibited...
Statements claiming things like, "We all know this doesn't/shouldn't happen in the OF" or "this was an 'aberration' in the EF and so automatically is to be considered forbidden in the OF" are NOT the same thing as some part of the EF being explicitly forbidden in the OF.

The are two different forms, yes. And yet, Mia's question remains. We don't hear about probing the differences between the two forms expressed in the way she asked her question. It is much easier to ask what is forbidden in the EF that is allowed in the OF... Great question, Mia.

One that I'm not sure is expressly forbidden, as a matter of fact, I haven't actually read anything about it at all:

In the NO funeral Mass, why do we no longer sing "dona eis requiem" instead of "miserere nobis?" Was it just left out of the official books, and if so is not allowed in the NO?

Thanks Mary Ann, I'm glad I asked. And the answer means a lot to me.

Charles W, I agree that
"People have a tendency to follow fads and do as they please."
I think that's why the Church needs reform to put us back to the right track.
It's not the Church who keeps changing the rules, but it's us who keep creating 'fads' or abuses that causes truobles.

I'd like to know where I can find more info on this,
"The Council of Nicea commanded us to stand with the risen Christ during the canon."

Is it like the change of 'we believe' to I believe' of 'Credo?' The first council used 'We believe', because of the good reason in that historical context. But after that, we have a long standing tradition of saying 'I believe,' instead of 'we.' And instead of chaning 'I believe' in EF, the Church is changing "we' to "I' in NO starting next year. And whether one agrees or not, we Roman Catholics will be following the Church's decision. This will also unify the prayer between EF and OF, whether it's in Latin or vernacular.
Kneeling is a gesture in Roman Rite, a sgin of reverance and humility that has been kept and approved by Holy Fathers much longer than standing, especially during consecration and communion, and Our Pope Benedict even goes further to express it in the example of 'Kneeling and on the tongue only' at the communion in his Masses. Our Lord had to kneel and carry His cross on this earth before he rose, and I cannot claim that I am standing with risen Christ on this earth without kneeling and carrying my cross first on this earth.

* Split canon not permitted in the OF

But this is a common practice all over the world, esp. in Germany. It happens at Papal Masses. Goes on all over the country in the U.S. -- something is wrong with this claim. I don't need to add that vast amounts of choral repertoire presume a "split" sanctus.

Mia, this is from NewAdvent, among other sources. Canon 20 from the Council of Nicea says,

"Canon 20: On Sundays and during the Paschal season prayers should be said standing."

This is still the practice in Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Kneeling is an innovation introduced during late medieval times, as best I can tell. The Roman Church in the west stood for centuries longer than it has knelt.

From my own readings, it appears that the mass in the west varied from place to place. Trent codified it and imposed a standard form of mass on everyone except the eastern churches. That lasted until Vatican II when the mass was again substantially revised. I think it important to remember that what many consider "tradition" is the mass and practices imposed by the Council of Trent. The Church existed for 1500 years before Trent and Trent didn't always follow apostolic or early church laws and practices.

Charles W. thank you for the info. I'll look into that. (very interesting)

So you think the right way is to stand during consecration and Vatican II corrected? ("That lasted until Vatican II when the mass was again substantially revised." quote from your post above)
The reason I kneel is already explained above. Sign of reverance and humility, and the Holy Father's example for us. Also notice I don't call Tridentine Mass, but Traditional Mass, because the Traditional Mass is not just from Trent. If the Trent didn't accept the right practice, it's not for me to judge. The Church would have corrected it. Vatican council didn't make standing as 'norm' at all during consecration. Only the US bishops made standing as 'standard' at the communion. (Father Z has a good explanation about this.)
But there are US bishops who try to follow our Holy Father's example, and I hope those who didn't know, watch Papal Masses where the kneelers are brought out.
I'm not a Byzantine or Eastern Orthodox. I try to follow the instruction of the current Roman Church. There might be something confusing parts in the instructions, and I try to understand them, for which this thread is about.
I don't believe Vatican II ever instructed to stand during consecration on any Sundays or weekdays.

I don't think Vatican II commanded anyone to stand or kneel. I have seen instructions from the U.S. Bishops on kneeling at certain times, but don't remember Vatican II mentioning the subject.

The eastern churches, which don't accept any councils after the first seven as ecumenical, view Trent as a local church council called by the west to address Protestantism - never a problem in the east. The east was concerned with Muslims, not Protestants. Since the east considers Nicea to be a significantly higher level authority than Trent, it wouldn't have accepted any changes created by Trent. It has, consequently, followed the mandate of Nicea to stand on Sundays and during Easter.

Can we please stop dispensing misinformation here? Yes, I'm talking to you CharlesW. If you don't know what you are talking about, stop talking. The Sprinkling rite is not suppressed; it can be used every Sunday just as in the EF. And in Easter, it is not Asperges. It is Vidi Aquam. Please!

* Split canon not permitted in the OF

Jeffrey responded:
But this is a common practice all over the world, esp. in Germany. It happens at Papal Masses. Goes on all over the country in the U.S. -- something is wrong with this claim. I don't need to add that vast amounts of choral repertoire presume a "split" sanctus.

Great! (Right, I meant a split Sanctus.) How can I confirm that this is in fact done? The example of papal Masses would help. (Written reports are enough for me, but of course video is even better.) I went looking at the Holy Father's 2009 Pentecost Mass (Haydn Mass at St Peter's) in hope of finding an example, but it didn't happen in that case.

It would be wonderful if a side-by-side comparison of the two masses could be found. Then we could compare them. I have not seen such a comparison. Have you? Without having access to such, it seems we are all relying on our memories. Surely, someone somewhere has made a study of the two and compared the differences.

Charles W. My question is not even about the differences between the two forms. Please read the title of the thread and the first post. I thought I made it clear. (maybe it's my poor English, I should post it in Korean? :-)

Jeffrey, thanks. I'm so glad to know that Sprinkle rite is not suppressed on ordinary Sundays.

Is the term 'suppressed' interchangeable with 'prohibited' when we talk about Church's instructions?

In Chonaks' list (thank you fopr the nice list),

"Psalm 42 at the foot of the altar is not in the OF"

Does this mean it is suppressed?

Also, "Last Gospel is suppressed." does this mean it is prohibited in Novus Ordo, or not required because it is not listed just as the psalm 42?

When I think about it, I can't be sure what is different

Thank you.

If I may, i will start Charles W question in a new thread. It may be interesting for some, but I found it is confusing to others who are engaged in the topic of this thread.
The new thread can also be a good place to discuss what the Roman Catholics uphold as "tradition," and compare the differences between the Trent and Eastern churches teachings.

"Some of the Byzantine churches reunited with Rome by treaty. Those treaties specify that the the eastern Catholic churches are required to accept only the first seven councils as ecumenical."

Whoa, this is news to me. It can't be true, can it? Vatican I doesn't apply to Eastern Rite Catholics? Evidence, please!

Sequence "Dies Irae" removed from funeral Masses,
Yes and no. The term "alia aptus" will allow the Dies Irae as an Offertory or Communion voluntary, too. It's in the rubrics.

"In the earliest times Mass was celebrated in the Holy Grave, where the folded cloth was found, because Christians knew that the Eucharsit is primarily a representation, not of the Last Supper on Holy Thursday , but of the Lord’s death and Resurrection. Today in the church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, ...only a few people present at a Mass...the priest stays with the people in the anteroom until Creed. For the sacrifical part of the Mass, he enters the grave chamber. There he alone and invisible. The altar is is the niche in which the body of Jesus lay .."(from Heresy of Formlessness by Martin Mosebach, P.88).
This is also well supported in J. Jungmman’s book, The Mass of the Roman Rite, that “the silent canon appears as early as in the first Roman ordo, where, after the mention of the Sanctus-chant, the rubric continues, Quem dum expleverint, surgit pontifex solus et intrat in canone. It continues that in the second Roman ordo, which represent a late Carolngian revision of the first, the rubric cited above is reworded as follows: surgit solus pontifex et tacite intrat in canonem. That the caonon, was a holy of holies which the priest alone could tread, was a concepts that was continually developed and consolidated. Other reasons for silent reciting the canon pointed in the same direction; the sacred words must not be profaned, lest we call down God’s punishment upon our heads.” (PP. 104 -105)

I found that silent canon has the most striking meaning and the origin even from the early church. It's hard to imagine that Vatican II forbid the sacred silent canon we have kept from the beginning. If it is truly forbidden in NO, it seems that the effort to make the canon audible actually diminishes the true meaning of the Holy Sacrifice and the Eucharist that has been kept from the beginning until now. If silent canon is a wrong practice and something that has to be corrected, why the Church is not correcting it in EF?

Mia, while doing some research on another topic (read: huge document project), I came across a document that answers your question with specific detail. Caution: I post this without knowing if more recent norms have come to pass. However, I have not seen lists like this in any other document, so I find it very interesting. It indicates what specifically was meant to be changed from the older form of Mass to the newer form.

http://adoremus.org/Interoecumenici.html

This is a link to the document, "Inter oecumenici",
Instruction on implementing liturgical norms
Consilium (of Sacred Congregation of Rites) - September 26, 1964

Under section I, Ordo Missae, for example, we find the following list of changes below. FORUM READERS PLEASE NOTE letter "f", which has been the subject of debate on these forums for some time... the silent canon in the OF. From this document, it would appear that NOT ALL of the canon is indicated to be sung or read allowed... Perhaps someone has more recent info that forbids any part of the canon being silent, but this document only calls for the END of the canon to be sung or read aloud. Not even the consecration is called to be sung or read aloud. Very interesting.


48. Until reform of the entire Ordo Missae, the points that follow are to be observed:
a. The celebrant is not to say privately those parts of the Proper sung or recited by the choir or the congregation.

b. The celebrant may sing or recite the parts of the Ordinary together with the congregation or choir.

c. In the prayers at the foot of the altar at the beginning of Mass Psalm 42 is omitted. All the prayers at the foot of the altar are omitted whenever there is another liturgical rite immediately preceding.

d. In solemn Mass the subdeacon does not hold the paten but leaves it on the altar.

e. In sung Masses the secret prayer or prayer over the gifts is sung and in other Masses recited aloud.

f. The doxology at the end of the canon, from Per ipsum through Per omnia saecula saeculorum. R. Amen, is to be sung or recited aloud. Throughout the whole doxology the celebrant slightly elevates the chalice with the host, omitting the signs of the cross, and genuflects at the end after the Amen response by the people.

g. In recited Masses the congregation may recite the Lord's Prayer in the vernacular along with the celebrant; in sung Masses the people may sing it in Latin along with the celebrant and, should the territorial ecclesiastical authority have so decreed, also in the vernacular, using melodies approved by the same authority.

h. The embolism after the Lord's Prayer shall be sung or recited aloud.

i. The formulary for distributing holy communion is to be, Corpus Christi. As he says these words, the celebrant holds the host slightly above the ciborium and shows it to the communicant, who responds: Amen, then receives communion from the celebrant, the sign of the cross with the host being omitted.

j. The last gospel is omitted; the Leonine Prayers are suppressed.

k. It is lawful to celebrate a sung Mass with only a deacon assisting.

l. It is lawful, when necessary, for bishops to celebrate a sung Mass following the form used by priests.

A question. Would all here accept GIRM as being the governing document for the celebration of the OF in the United States?

Our GIRM is also a translation, often bordering on a paraphrase, of the actual GIRM of the Missale Romanum, in Latin. If anyone thinks that the Mass, throughout all modern generations, in all corners of the globe, has been said according to absolutely universal norms, they are sadly mistaken. It may have been more-so before Vat. II, but since then, it has been very much a "no holds barred" sporting event.

Next stop, the

General Instruction of the Roman Missal, from
Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship
March 27, 1975

http://adoremus.org/GIRM(music).html

If there was a definite change that involved forbidding the earlier practice, it should be here. I still don't find anything conclusive. HOWEVER, I can see where Liam's reference might be coming from. Please find the pertinent paragraphs, 10 and 12, below.

But first, two points-
1) From the structure of paragraph 10, it is not entirely clear that the canon or eucharistic prayer is included in "the presidential prayers". I see how it could be interpreted this way, but it is not conclusive in itself.
2) If one is to interpret the canon as being part of the presidential prayers, then one would understand no. 12 to rule out the practice of a silent/sotto voce canon.
3) To follow precedent, the practice of the silent/sotto voce canon, still allowed in the transitional '65 Missal, would need to be clearly articulated. No such terminology exists, at least not this far.

I have a pretty strong knowledge of the 2002 GIRM, and can't recall anything forbidding the silent canon. But if someone can point to a reference in a Roman document that makes this clear, that would be helpful. I don't have enough Latin background to read the 2002 in Latin, but someone who does could also help solidify this.


10. Among the parts assigned to the priest, the eucharistic prayer is preeminent; it is the high point of the entire celebration. Next are the prayers: the opening prayer or collect, the prayer over the gifts, and the prayer after communion. The priest, presiding over the assembly in the person of Christ, addresses these prayers to God in the name of the entire holy people and all present.[19] Thus there is good reason to call them "the presidential prayers."

and

12. The nature of the presidential prayers demands that they be spoken in a loud and clear voice and that everyone present listen with attention.[21] While the priest is reciting them there should be no other prayer and the organ or other instruments should not be played.