Liam, I am not trying to choose one camp or the other, but I do see your point. It feels weird to me to have a motet or organ piece played during the canon, as is done at the EF (FSSP) parish where I work. The 5-6 times a year that we have a polyphonic Ordinary, it feels weird to sing a split Sanctus when I know the Gregorian which preceded the polyphonic is not split. But I have to ask myself, is my objection grounded in what is really wrong, in what I prefer, or in what I have been conditioned to think while working and being brought up in the OF?

In the case of something with such a (truly) long tradition, I tread more carefully.
In the case of claiming something as forbidden if it is not, I tread even more carefully.

For the record, I still think orchestral masses present a problem. But I honor great compositions, and also honor the fact that they are not prohibited in themselves. And I see the distinction in suitability between a Haydn mass, or a Gounod or a Rossini. And sometimes works within the greater opus of a single composer.

It is the problem of knocking people about for nothing that bothers me, what I referred to above as "liturgical tyranny". If we don't question what has been handed to us, we might be guilty of doing this, intentionally or no.

That's why Mia's question is so important. It helps with untangling that which is truly not allowed from that which is preferred- or not.

MA

Just remember that the canon being prayed aloud does not prevent the Sanctus-Benedictus from being sung beforehand. It might be less economical, timewise (raising the issue of the tail wagging the dog in this regard), but this is not an either/or situation except for people hellbent on reading it that way.

"That's why Mia's question is so important. It helps with untangling that which is truly not allowed from that which is preferred- or not."

That's what I am asking, too. If we don't accept the authority of the bishops to regulate liturgy, and reject their authority as expressed in GIRM, what are we supposed to do? Do we mix and match between the EF and OF to get the sounds and period pieces that are pleasing to our ears? Even I know that mixing the two rites is forbidden, because I have read that prohibition. I am willing to follow the rules, when I can figure out what they are.

Charles W, There is no mixing. We are trying to understand the instrcution as faithfully as we can with proper understanding and tradition. I believe GIRM is written for people who have knowledge in our inherited tradition, yes even going back before Trent, but inherited. THe interpretaion of the instruction requries more than just reading the words and translation of GIRM, especially when there apprears to be a noticeable conflict between the tradition and the recent instruction. If we are not careful, we might easily be throwing out what have been sacred and would be sacred in our liturgy, and our next generation can be deprived of those sacredness, not because of the Church's instruction, but because of the false interpretaion and the abuse by the whims of 'liturgists.' as seen in the last 40 years. Thanks to those people, many people believed and still believe that Latin and Gregorian chant are forbidden when actually vernacular and some limited non liturgical hymns are allowed.

People who didn't have any chance to experience sacredness of the silent canon, like Gregorian chant and Latin, it probably hard to defend it and its beauty and sacredness. It may apprear to be very 'unpractical.'

Mary Ann, thank you. I'm learning so much.

Adam, that sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

It seems that the silent Canon was not a certainty in the first Roman Ordo:

"Et accedente pontifice ad altare, dextra laevaque circumdant altare, et simul cum illo canonem dicunt, tenentes oblatas in manibus, non super altare, ut vox pontificis valentius audiatur; et simul consecrant corpus et sanguinem Domini: sed tantum pontifex facit super altare crucem dextra laevaque."

While this is from the supplement (and was probably not in the original), and while it also is an instance of concelebration (and therefore not characteristic of every Sunday), it would seem that OR II, the Carolingian recension, would fall into the same category as the above quote: adaptation.
Also, I'm still not convinced that OR I presuppose a silent Canon. My Latin's rusty, but does "solus" in the rubric "quem dum expleverint, surgit pontifex solus et intrat in canonem" refer to both "surgit" and "intrat"? Could it possibly mean that the Pope alone says the prayer, not that he says it silently? I really don't know.

The Ordo of St. Amand says:

"On Christmas day, the Epiphany, the Holy Sabbath, Easter day, Easter Monday, Ascension day, Whitsunday, and the feast of Saints Peter and Paul, the bishops stand behind the pontiff with bowed heads, and the presbyters on their right and left, and each one holds a corporal in his hand; two loaves are then given to each of them by the archdeacon, and the pontiff says the canon so that he can be heard by them; and they hallow the loaves which they hold, just as the pontiff hallows those on the altar."

I realize these are moments of concelebration.

With all this confusion and speculation, why doesn't a concerned party simply write to the Congregation for Divine Worship for clarification? I have seen people elsewhere online post CDW's replies to letters asking questions of far less importance and confusion than this one.

My sense from tracking this post is that partisans of either viewpoint might be worried that the response would not be what they want to hear! As for me, for the last few years I have had the opportunity to conduct an orchestral OF Mass (with an audible canon) about once a year, and we choose to perform the Benedictus attacca after the Sanctus. Once or twice, with settings where the Benedictus was drawn out (and maybe my solo quartet was not up to par!) I have subsituted chant for the Benedictus, again immediately following the Sanctus. Ultimately I don't think that parish would be comfortable with the idea of a silent canon - however it would be nice to have some official word from Rome - just so we as musicians know what our options are.

If that is indeed the response we get, then great! Use it - or don't. I'm sorry if I don't understand the confusion and drama around the issue.

[[Uninformed opinion warning]]

Laying aside the fact that some bloggers will complain no matter what you do, and some people are scared of the (largely imagined, I imagine) political/theological/ecclesiastical implications of traditional liturgy...

Perhaps the following concern could be raised about the Colloq's OF silent canon:

Besides the central purpose of liturgy (glorification of God, etc) is the purpose of liturgies (and the specifics of their execution) at the colloquium primarily for:
1. the spiritual edification of those gathered?
2. an example of what those gathered could go home and work towards in their own parishes?


The answer to that question may imply certain practices over others, especially in an OF Mass.

I was really just conjecturing. I don't have a dog in this fight because, like JT, I don't see what the big deal is about. I just like to help people think clearly about their issues.

I guess I don't understand the need of sacred musicians to worry *too* much about the why. I understand it's important to question in order to understand and grow in any area - especially matters of faith - but it seems futile to overdo it in this particular situation.

The deeper question now for me, is why ask why? (lol)

I'm pretty sure I understand the logic and convictions of those who prefer an inaudible canon in general, and I respect that viewpoint even if it's not my personal preference. As a musician, I thoroughly understand why an inaudible canon would make more sense given tradition with regard to polyphonic or orchestral settings of the Sanctus/Benedictus.

But apart from that, what should it really matter what our personal preferences are? I myself have been trying to rise above experiencing negative reactions to liturgical choices that go against my own individual preferences but are rubrically permitted. The Church, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit has allowed for options in the OF. Even as someone who grew up entirely in the OF, I regret the unfortunate abuses that sprung from people with agendas taking this license far beyond what was intended. In the *long* run, however, I believe that choice in liturgy (within prescribed boundaries) is a good thing, but requiring much prayerful care in use.

Personal preference (of priests or musicians) is in fact the problem with choice. One must honestly choose the option that will truly best serve to direct the prayer of the majority of your congregation and guard against over-advocating your own preference. In this particular case, congregations accustomed to an inaudible canon may be distracted from prayer by hearing the priest proclaim it aloud just as much as congregations accustomed to hearing the canon proclaimed aloud may be distracted from prayer by music or silence in its place.

A word of personal opinion here about our duty as Catholics to bring people to the Lord through the Church. I think we have a duty to do this - and we must meet people where they are with respect to liturgy. The danger in this is that some may unnecessarily dumb things down for people and/or never actually challenge them to continue grow once they've entered/rejoined the Church. Nevertheless, I have great personal difficulty disparaging a legal liturgical choice that is truly and honestly made with the goal of ultimately securing the salvation of souls. Of course, for such choices to continue to be made, there should be some evidence that this is actually happening, and the reason not just tossed out as a convenient excuse for the implementation of personal preference. And if there is evidence, such evangelizing requires the patience and humility of those who feel they do not require it.

As in all things, individual growth comes from trying to understand the opposite point of view. Obviously from the facts presented in earlier posts, the audible vs. inaudible canon is something which people (and the Church itself) has gone back and forth on for thousands of years. Surely conditioning also has a part in forming preferences - and this is why the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit to prescribe norms. I suspect it is simply the case that all of our individual consciousnesses/souls have different ways of processing anything - even prayer. Since we are all created in the image and likeness of God, isn't this just another example of the awesomeness and mystery of God?

Despite my previously stated preference for the audible canon at the OF, I've begun singing with a local schola at the EF, and I've tried to enter into that interior participation during the canon as much as possible. I still don't feel I'm praying with as much focus as when I listen and pray along with the audible words spoken by the priest, but I try to be open to it rather than dismiss or reject it outright, because so many people whom I respect (to say nothing of saints through the ages) hold the practice in such high esteem.

Yes, the Church is universal. But maybe rather than use that fact to push for a single "right" way to do things, that's a call for us to open ourselves up to experiencing all the valid options in the appropriate situations.

SkirkR

Unfortunately, many priests have never experienced great music or authentic liturgy. When we, as musicians, fail to understand and be able to explain the split Sanctus/Benedictus we are in a position that is weak, very weak.

We know that it was done because composers wrote music to serve the Mass when said this way.

Yet when a Mass is said this way there are those who question it and...there seem to be no answers.

I believe the celebrant holding his index finger and thumb together is forbidden. I read that the Pope mandated that the priest should rub his finger and thumb together over the paten.