More Than Words: External Signs of Faith by the Celebrant

The Significance of Genuflections and Other Gestures

By Father Nicola Bux

ROME, JAN. 21, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Faith in the presence of the Lord, and in particular in his Eucharistic presence, is expressed in an exemplary manner by the priest when he genuflects with profound reverence during the Holy Mass or before the Eucharist.

In the post-conciliar liturgy, these acts of devotion have been reduced to a minimum in the name of sobriety. The result is that genuflections have become a rarity, or a superficial gesture. We have become stingy with our gestures of reverence before the Lord, even though we often praise Jews and Muslims for their fervor and manner way of praying.

More than words, a genuflection manifests the humility of the priest, who knows he is only a minister, and his dignity, as he is able to render the Lord present in the sacrament. However, there are other signs of devotion.

When the priest extends his hands in prayer he is indicating the supplication of the poor and humble one. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GRIM) establishes that the priest, "when he celebrates the Eucharist, therefore, he must serve God and the people with dignity and humility, and by his bearing and by the way he says the divine words he must convey to the faithful the living presence of Christ" (No. 93). An attitude of humility is consonant with Christ himself, meek and humble of heart. He must increase and I must decrease.

In proceeding to the altar, the priest must be humble, not ostentatious, without indulging in looking to the right and to the left, as if he were seeking applause. Instead, he must look at Jesus; Christ crucified is present in the tabernacle, before whom he must bow. The same is done before the sacred images displayed in the apse behind or on the sides of the altar, the Virgin, the titular saint, the other saints.

The reverent kiss of the altar follows and eventually the incense, the sign of the cross and the sober greeting of the faithful. Following the greeting is the penitential act, to be carried out profoundly with the eyes lowered. In the extraordinary form, the the faithful kneel, imitating the publican pleasing to the Lord.

The celebrant must not raise his voice and should maintain a clear tone for the homily, but be submissive and suppliant in prayer, solemn if sung. "In texts that are to be spoken in a loud and clear voice, whether by the priest or the deacon, or by the lector, or by all, the tone of voice should correspond to the genre of the text itself, that is, depending upon whether it is a reading, a prayer, a commentary, an acclamation, or a sung text; the tone should also be suited to the form of celebration and to the solemnity of the gathering" (GRIM, No. 38).

He will touch the holy gifts with wonder, and will purify the sacred vessels with calm and attention, in keeping with the appeal of so many saints and priests before him. He will bow his head over the bread and the chalice in pronouncing the consecrating words of Christ and in the invocation of the Holy Spirit (epiclesi). He will raise them separately, fixing his gaze on them in adoration and then lowering them in meditation. He will kneel twice in solemn adoration. He will continue with recollection and a prayerful tone the anaphora to the doxology, raising the holy gifts in offer to the Father.

Then, he will recite the Our Father with his hands raised, without having anything else in his hands, because that is proper to the rite of peace. The priest will not leave the Sacrament on the altar to give the sign of peace outside the presbytery, instead he will break the Host in a solemn and visible way, then he will genuflect before the Eucharist and pray in silence. He will ask again to be delivered from every indignity not to eat and drink to his own condemnation and to be protected for eternal life by the holy Body and precious Blood of Christ. Then he will present the Host to the faithful for communion, praying "Dominum non sum dignus," and bowing he will commune first, and thus will be an example to the faithful.

After communion, silence for thanksgiving can be done standing, better than sitting, as a sign of respect, or kneeling, if it is possible, as John Paul II did to the end when he celebrated in his private chapel, with his head bowed and his hands joined. He asked that the gift received be for him a remedy for eternal life, as in the formula that accompanies the purification of the sacred vessels; many faithful do so and are an example.
Should not the paten or cup and the chalice (vessels that are sacred because of what they contain) be "laudably" covered (GRIM 118; cf. 183) in sign of respect -- and also for reasons of hygiene -- as the Eastern Churches do? The priest, after the final greeting and blessing, going up to the altar to kiss it, will again raise his eyes to the crucifix and will bow and genuflect before the tabernacle. Then he will return to the sacristy, recollected, without dissipating with looks and words the grace of the mystery celebrated.

In this way the faithful will be helped to understand the holy signs of the liturgy, which is something serious, in which everything has a meaning for the encounter with the present mystery of God.

* * *

Father Nicola Bux is professor of Eastern Liturgy in Bari and consultor of the Congregations for the Doctrine of the Faith, for Saints' Causes, for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, as well as of the Office for the Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff.

[Translation by ZENIT]

Justfying my quote--Part III

As Schola Master and Choir Director for the former Toronto Apostolate of the FSSP, I have been quoted in The current edition of The Catholic Register. A friend from Rome has written asking that I justify and clarify me comments:

“The Extraordinary Form is the fullest form of Catholic worship to God,” wrote David Domet, 53. “It is how the Mass was celebrated in Rome for over 1,500 years: it was only codified… at (the 16th-century Council of) Trent to promote uniformity in the rite. The roots of this (liturgy) are (in) the Temple in Jerusalem… The said or sung propers, the psalms of the Mass, connect us with the roots of our faith… When I sing the Gregorian chant and chant the psalms, it is the closest thing we know to the manner in which our Lord Himself would have heard and sung the psalms.”
Part the Third: Gregorian chant and the chanting of the psalms is the closest thing we know to the manner in which Our LORD Himself would have heard and sung the psalms in the Temple.

It is unknown by most people that in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite or Novus Ordo liturgy, Gregorian chant is the prescribed liturgical music for the Mass. The proof is in two places. First, "The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as proper to the Roman liturgy; therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services" (Vatican Council II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, No.116); second, the issuance of the 1974 The Graduale Romanum for the Novus Ordo and new calendar; essentially a smaller version of the Liber Usualis, which is ordered for the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite and last published in 1961. In this Graduale as in the Liber are the five Gregorian Proper for the Mass even if it is said in English. They are in Gregorian chant melismas and are the Introit, Graduale, Alleluia or Tract, Offertory and Communion and the appropriate Sequences and other Psalms and the Ordinary the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus and Agnus.

Clearly, the Church intends Gregorian chant to be sung in both forms of the Roman Rite and the Second Vatican Council and all popes since have reaffirmed this.

But why and where did this music come from?

If we read the Psalms, we often see in Holy David's own words..."To the choirmaster... ." Clearly, we know from this and Jewish liturgical history as well that the Psalms were meant to be sung. they were songs of praise or repentance or of prayer and supplication and they were chanted to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. When as an infant, Mary of Nazareth was offered to God in the Temple by Anna and Joachim, they would have heard the psalms being sung. When Our Blessed Mother returned to present her own child with Joseph her husband and as she heard the words of Simeon and the Prophetess Hannah, the daughter of Phanuel, they would have heard singing. When at twelve, Jesus was teaching in the Temple, the psalms were sung. And when he was at the Temple in the last week of His life before the Crucifixion and Resurrection, he heard and sang the psalms Himself as He would have done at the synagogue in Capernaum.

But what did this singing sound like?
Those Jews which accepted Jesus as Messiah practiced their Judaic faith with the LORD's Prayer and Supper and this developed before the end of the first century to the Divine Liturgy. These early Christians sang and what they sang were the psalms they knew from the Temple. It is recorded that a vision was held by St. Ignatius of Antioch of Angels singing to the Holy Trinity in alternating hymns or antiphons from the Greek for opposite voices. St. Ambrose of Milan later formalised this method of singing and developed the first four authentic tones. The chants for the Mass was codified or organised by Pope Gregory the Great in the sixth century, he died in 604. Originally, the texts were chanted by memory, literally passed on orally. By the tenth century a system of writing down the chants and the music was developed and standards and uniformity became more commonplace, though to be sure, different styles were present with the different rites--Ambrosian chant for example.

It was Guido of Arezzo in 930 who developed St. Ambrose's work into a seven-note scale which eventually grew to eight. This scale of Do Re Mi, etc. named from the first letters of of the words to a hymn to St. John the Baptist, Ut Queant Laxis and where the notes fell on the system of lines and neumes developed by Arezzo. This is where our whole western music originates. The only accidental (black key) was the B flat assuming it is sung in its written pitch of a C clef which we would now call, C Major. For a more theoretical understanding, one may visit Thesaurus Musicarum Latinarum.

In the east the Byzantine chant is the equivalent. Using more accidentals, sharps and flats; more in-between notes and it has a distinctly different sound and both Gregorian chant and Byzantine chant share similar characteristics in that they are both made up of eight tones which are derived from the first four. Old Roman Chant which pre-dates Gregorian which became more suited to western ears is closer to Byzantine. If one listens today to the sounds of Byzantine or Old Roman Chant from which our Gregorian Chant derives one can hear the same sounds as that sung in the Orthodox Jewish liturgy.

Let me quote here from Father Joseph Fessio, S.J. from The Mass of Vatican II online at Ignatius Insight:
"Now, just a little footnote on the Gregorian Chant. In reflecting on these things about Church music, I began to think about the Psalms a few years back. And a very obvious idea suddenly struck me. Why it didn't come earlier I don't know, but the fact is that the Psalms are songs. Every one of the 150 Psalms is meant to be sung; and was sung by the Jews. When this thought came to me, I immediately called a friend, a rabbi in San Francisco who runs the Hebrew School, and I asked, "Do you sing the Psalms at your synagogue?" "Well, no, we recite them," he said. "Do you know what they sounded like when they were sung in the Old Testament times and the time of Jesus and the Apostles?" I asked. He said, "No, but why don't you call this company in Upstate New York. They publish Hebrew music, and they may know." So, I called the company and they said, "We don't know; call 1-800-JUDAISM." So I did. And I got an information center for Jewish traditions, and they didn't know either. But they said, "You call this music teacher in Manhattan. He will know." So, I called this wonderful rabbi in Manhattan and we had a long conversation. At the end, I said, "I want to bring some focus to this, can you give me any idea what it sounded like when Jesus and his Apostles sang the Psalms?" He said, "Of course, Father. It sounded like Gregorian Chant. You got it from us."

After speaking to Professor William Mahrt, Professor of Music at Stanford University, Father Fessio questioned Professor Mart on the information he received from the Manhattan Rabbi. Professor Mahrt confirmed that "Yes. The Psalm tones have their roots in ancient Jewish hymnody and psalmody." Father Fessio concluded that "if you sing the Psalms at Mass with the Gregorian tones, you are as close as you can get to praying with Jesus and Mary. They sang the Psalms in tones that have come down to us today in Gregorian Chant."

To say that our LORD sang Gregorian Chant would be silly. To say that Gregorian Chant is the closest thing we know to what He heard and sang in the Temple is obvious.

FURTHER READING:

An Analysis of Sacrosanctam Concilium; Joseph Jaskierny, Kendrick School of Theology

Gregorian Chant: Back to Basics in the Roman Rite by John C. Piunno The American Organist Magazine June 2005 (Canticanova.com)

The Real Catholic Songbook by Jeffrey Tucker: Catholicity

Justfying my quote--Part II

As Schola Master and Choir Director for the former Toronto Apostolate of the FSSP, I have been quoted in The current edition of The Catholic Register. A friend from Rome has written asking that I justify and clarify me comments:

“The Extraordinary Form is the fullest form of Catholic worship to God,” wrote David Domet, 53. “It is how the Mass was celebrated in Rome for over 1,500 years: it was only codified… at (the 16th-century Council of) Trent to promote uniformity in the rite. The roots of this (liturgy) are (in) the Temple in Jerusalem… The said or sung propers, the psalms of the Mass, connect us with the roots of our faith… When I sing the Gregorian chant and chant the psalms, it is the closest thing we know to the manner in which our Lord Himself would have heard and sung the psalms.”
Part the Second: The Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite is how the Mass was celebrated at Rome for over 1,500 years, it was only codified at the Council of Trent

How many scholars have already addressed this question and yet I find myself needing to defend my statement. Father Adrian Fortescue, Monsignor Klaus Gamber, Dom Guéranger, Reverend Dr. Alcuin Reid, Father Jonathan Robinson, layman Michael Davies all experts in the questions of liturgy. Who am I to even think of writing an essay on these matters when such great work exists from these?

But I made a statement and I shall justify it myself and then refer you to writers much more knowledgeable and scholarly than I could ever hope to be.

As discussed in Part the First, the Mass grew out of the Temple worship in Jerusalem. Following the issuance of the motu proprio SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM many opposed to the spread of the usus antiquior and most, if not all in the media, referred to the "Latin Mass" (which is incorrect because the Ordinary Form is always able to be celebrated in Latin) as dating from the Council of Trent in 1570. If this is true, then what existed prior to Trent?

As discussed in Part the First, the Mass as we have it today is from apostolic times; though clearly the liturgy developed. The Roman Canon of the Mass (the First Eucharistic Prayer in the Ordinary Form) dates from the time of Pope St. Gregory the Great d.604 and remains unchanged from the Te igitur to the Amen.

The fact is, it is not true that the so-called Tridentine Mass was written at Trent. It was codified or made the standard at the Council of Trent for the Latin Rite--the western Church except for a few minor exceptions.

It was in 1440, 130 years before Trent that Johannes Gutenburg invented the printing press. Up to that time, the Holy Bible and the liturgical books of the Church were compiled by hand; laboured on for years by monks through the monasteries of Europe. There value in today's terms would be in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. In many cases, a monk may have made additions or deletions to certain liturgical books some by accident, some by intent but not necessarily maliciously. There were different religious orders that had their own specific liturgies. In England the Mass was celebrated as it was at Salisbury Cathedral and was known as the Sarum Rite. In northern Italy, primarily around Milan, their is still to this day the Milanese or Ambrosian Rite and in southern Spain the Mozarabic Rite from the Christian Arabs there at the time of the Moors. Other rites and modifications existed throughout Europe. How long did a papal order take to get from Rome to Scandinavia or Ireland to say nothing of the New World?

One of the decrees arising from the Council of Trent was the imposition of the Mass as it was celebrated at Rome and in fact, the Curia Mass itself; hence the Roman Missal. The Tropes at the Kyrie (to return in the penitential rite in the Ordinary Form) were eliminated as were the multiplicity of Sequence options reduced to five (now three in the OF) and inconsistently used across Europe. Incorporated was the preparatory prayer said by the Priest and his Server on their way to the Altar to the beginning for all, the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar. Other small changes occurred and this order was to be said by all priests in the Latin Rite. Mass was celebrate differently almost everywhere. Unless the Rite existed for over 200 years, as in the case of the Ambrosian and Mozarabic, the Carmelite and Domincan Rites and probably the Sarum Rite had England not gone into heresy and schism by Henry VIII all had to conform to this ancient Mass as it was celebrate in Rome since at least the time of Pope St. Gregory the Great. While the Roman Mass as we have it today dates from this time, the Canon of the Mass dates at least from the fourth century and is referred to by St. Ambrose of Milan substantially the same as that of the Roman Canon or First Eucharistic Prayer in the Ordinary Form and the only Canon in the Extraordinary Form. The promulgation of a consistent and unified liturgy in what became the Roman Missal was necessary for missionary work, church unity and to rise to the challenge of the protestants. Discipline, education, consistency and holiness were necessary and the printing press together with the creation of seminaries helped bring this about.

Those who have taken the position that the Mass was composed at Trent usually tend to be Protestant or Evangelical Christians. It is something expected from Jack Chick that the Mass is nothing more than a renaissance Roman creation. Those who embraced the so-called "spirit of Vatican II" took up this same position, that the Mass dated from Trent. Why would these reformers betray the truth and scholarly evidence to unite themselves to a position taken by enemies of the Church for centuries? For Catholics to take such a position is simple ignorance at best and a betrayal at worst.

Read the Documents of the Second Vatican Council. Read the writings of those quoted above or the link on the Canon to the Catholic Encyclopaedia.

You don't need to take my word for it.

Part III:d

Justifying my quote--Part I

As Schola Master and Choir Director for the former Toronto Apostolate of the FSSP, I have been quoted in The current edition of The Catholic Register. A friend from Rome has written asking that I justify and clarify me comments:

“The Extraordinary Form is the fullest form of Catholic worship to God,” wrote David Domet, 53. “It is how the Mass was celebrated in Rome for over 1,500 years: it was only codified… at (the 16th-century Council of) Trent to promote uniformity in the rite. The roots of this (liturgy) are (in) the Temple in Jerusalem… The said or sung propers, the psalms of the Mass, connect us with the roots of our faith… When I sing the Gregorian chant and chant the psalms, it is the closest thing we know to the manner in which our Lord Himself would have heard and sung the psalms.”
Part the First: The Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite is the fullest form of Catholic worship to God.
Polemic arguments tend to arise when one expresses the opinion that the Holy Mass as celebrated in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite is a fuller and more complete expression of Catholic worship for the greater glory of God and the edification of His people. If indeed this is true, then it would logically follow that the current or more modern liturgical books are somehow deficient in their expression of the fullness of the worship due to God and needed by us. How then can this be argued without descending into a polemical debate clearly out of keeping with the desires of Pope Benedict XVI in his Motu Proprio SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM?

In paragraph 1323, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that Eucharist is “the source and summit of the Christian life.” As Catholics, we believe that the Consecration of the species through the words of the priest is the re-presentation of the blood atonement of the LORD at Calvary offered once to the Father and brought forward in time and space for us to be present there and Him, here. This is the same in the Extraordinary or Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite and in all of the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church and in the schismatic Orthodox and some other Old Catholic Masses and even a few Anglican Masses said by former Catholic priests or those ordained by the referred to Old Catholic bishops. The Eucharist is confected and therefore the Mass is “validated” by the form, matter and substance. However, the consecration can occur even if done outside of the Holy Mass. Since it is the words of the priest combined with the proper matter the Eucharist can be confected by a priest sitting in shorts at a coffee table outside of the Mass or on a hay-bale wearing blue jeans. The words of consecration make it valid and the sacrifice offered up to the Father; but it is the service of prayer and praise before and after in our Divine Worship that is for the greater glory of God and our edification and it is the lack thereof that may render it illicit, sacrilegious and even sinful. Unless it were Cardinal Nguyễn Văn Thuận in his jail cell putting a drop of wine in his hand and consecrating the Blood of Christ offered up to the Father then such a careless attempt at Mass would be truly, objectively sinful to the LORD. What we do for God cannot equal what He does for us. But whatever we do for Him, we must do all we can with the talents and energy He gives us to reach perfection in our leitourgia—our public duty to Him. This is why the great cathedrals were built over decades and centuries; why Palestrina wrote his four-hundred Masses and motets and why Michaelangelo laboured so expressively in the Sistine Chapel and why when Jedd Clampet put on a suit and tie he referred to it as his "Sunday goin a meetin' " clothes; these simply must be our best!

If it is true that the words of the priest at the Consecration confect the Eucharist then what is the point of the remainder of the Mass? Perhaps as some liturgists and antiquarians suggest, we should return to a practice of early Christians. Therefore, let us go to a Synagogue to sing the Psalms and then go to a private home, have a meal and then at the end of the meal have the Eucharist whilst we recline on cushions on the floor? Perhaps we should just recline spread around any gathering hall imitating the Last Supper of the LORD. This is a debate that raged throughout the professional liturgists over the last forty to fifty years; but their time is ending. Their work has been proven to be dross and they left no progeny to carry it on. We are now at a point of transition as the biological realities take hold.

After the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem and as Christianity was spreading, still in the first century, liturgy was developing. No longer did these Christians worship in the synagogue but in their own homes or where possible within separate structures—churches, as have been found recently in parts of what is now, Jordan. In Rome of course, the Christians worshipped in the catacombs. St. Justin Martyr in his First Apology wrote: “On the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons.” St. Justin was describing the Mass. Therefore, we know that whatever was being done to celebrate the Eucharist in first century Jerusalem and its surroundings, developed organically by the time of the Saint’s death in 161AD. The Early Church Fathers took the Temple worship as passed on to them by the Apostolic Fathers a Liturgy of the Word and enjoined to it what we now call the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The word Mass comes from ite missa est the dismissal, literally meaning “go, you are sent.” Perhaps the Eastern Rite Catholics and Orthodox express it more clearly where it is called, The Divine Liturgy or Divine Worship.

The Mass as we have it today is from apostolic times which has developed organically as theology developed. Transubstantiation was believed from the very beginning but it was only defined in the time of St. Thomas Aquinas. Surely one would not suggest that we should do away with his teachings or Thomism itself.

To disprove the protestant or evangelical Christian and anti-Catholic claim that the Mass came much later or the opinion of some liturgists in the latter half of the 20th century that true worship should be bare and stripped down as that described above is to ignore the truth as expressed by three ancient rites of the Catholic Church. When the Crusaders came through Mount Lebanon in the 10th century they were surprised to find the Divine Liturgy. While different from what they knew in Europe they recognised the Mass in the Maronite Rite, which is my own background. These Maronite monks knew of “Peter” and after were always united with Rome even though there had been no contact for centuries. Two other rites trace their history back to St. Thomas the Apostle. The Chaldeans (also the Persian Rite) in what is now northern Iraq on the Plains of Ninevah are the oldest indigenous Catholics in the world still on their land (though that is clearly becoming tenuous) and the Nasrani in India, descendants of the ancient Jewish diasporas evangelised in 52AD by this same apostle. Different from those Latin Rite Catholics in Goa and other parts of India, from whom did these learn their liturgy—their public duty if not from the Apostle himself? Yet the liturgy of these "St. Thomas Christians" in what is known as the Syro-Malabar and the Syro-Malankar Rites both bear greater resemblance to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite than the Ordinary. Can anyone deny that the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite in its manner of celebration in many places bears more resemblance to that of the heretical Lutherans or Cranmer’s Elizabethan Prayer Book than of our eastern Christians and our Catholic and Jewish roots?

I mention Jewish roots because that is the root of the Mass and in its Extraordinary Form, the Temple Worship is more clearly present and fulfilled in the Holy Eucharist. I have spoken recently with a Hebrew Catholic who believes that in the Ordinary Form the Catholic Mass has hidden its Jewishness and this is more clearly expressed in the Extraordinary. Since it was this worship that grew organically from the ancient Temple who are we to replace it? Don’t take my word for it, consider what Pope Benedict XVI in The Spirit of the Liturgy wrote: “We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it—as in a manufacturing process—with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.”
The Mass is more than the Eucharistic consecration. It is a prayer of thanksgiving—a eucharistia and praise to the Triune God. The Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite makes this abundantly clear throughout with the oft repeating of the “Glory be…” and the various prayers addressed specifically to the Holy Trinity. Beginning with the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar (added by Pope Pius V at the Council of Trent but formerly said by the Priest on his way to the Altar) the Bishop or Abbot or Priest and his assisting Ministers and by extension the people present all profess their joy at being present at the Holy of Holies but also their unworthiness. These prayers at the beginning of what we know call the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite establish to us that what we are about to do is something outside of ourselves. It establishes through our words and actions, internally and externally that we are about to do something that is out of the regular.

Throughout the EF, particularly in its sung or solemn form, this is made clear. The depth of the prayers, the invocation of the Trinity, frequent invocation of the Blessed Virgin, the Communion of Saints and the Angels, specifically the Archangel Michael, (such as at the incensing), all invoke great spiritual power. The silent Canon promoting prayer and contemplation and mystery, the elimination of the personality of the priest through the posture, the frequent genuflections to the Real Presence, the reception of Holy Communion in a solemn and dignified manner whilst kneeling, on the tongue and by the consecrated hands of the priest; all of this increases the depth of the peoples prayer and thus, their faith so that they can truly at the end of the Mass, be sent. Within are also the psalms or scripture verses contained in all five Propers which are not optional and cannot be substituted by devotional hymns. They are sung or in the case of a Missa Lecta they are read aloud, but they must be said. The great psalm at the opening prayers at the Foot of the Altar and at the Lavabo together with the Prologue of St. John at the end consistently and continually reinforce the Lex orendi, lex credendi of Catholic life and praxis.

While the above is true, the historical application of liturgical understanding by people was not always apparent and catechises was not always properly provided. But let us not debate that for 1,900 years most people were simply illiterate--yet they seemed to understand more than we. The oft sited remarks of little old ladies with doilies praying their rosary during Mass was why no less than Pope St. Pius X exhorted the people to “pray the Mass.” Now at the dawn of a new century a Pope desired a greater interior attitude amongst the commonfolk. People were no longer illiterate, education was no longer the domain of the wealth or those entering clerical life. The common folk could read, could be fully catechised, the hand missal was available with the people’s tongue written side-by-side with the Latin.

The liturgical movement grew in the 20th century to foster, not change in the liturgy but change in how we approached the liturgy. This is clear in Pope Pius X’s motu proprio Tra le sollecitudini and those documents issued by Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei and De musica sacra et sacra liturgia. These documents exhorted bishops, priests and the faithful to change how we approach and participate in the Mass. It was Pope St. Pius X who coined the phrase “actuoso participationem.” Badly translated as active, actuoso has a deeper meaning to include full, actual or true, it has come to be interpreted as outward activity—externals, if you will, and on the part that we all must by doing something outwardly and forgot what it meant inwardly.

The lack of implementation of the true liturgical movement allowed a false liturgical movement, what became the “spirit of Vatican II” to prevail. That “spirit” invaded Dominicans in North America and Europe whose influence was felt worldwide. Those in the Concilium who put before the Holy Father for promulgation a new liturgy that was something less than what existed before were the greatest purveyors of the false spirit. I have previously made the argument that the post Vatican II liturgical reforms, except for the new Lectionary, were complete by 1965. The Missa Normative of 1970 simply went beyond anything articulated in Sacrosanctam Concilium. However, let me make it clear, this is not an argument that the modern liturgy is invalid; it simply and objectively is less than what it was and must be drawn closer to its historic root. Let me also make it clear that while I attempt to attend Mass as frequently as possible during the week, it is most often in its newer Ordinary Form. What is described above existed for over 1500 years grew organically from the first century. It was and remains the highest form of Catholic worship to God. Therefore, it would follow that removing that from it which made it so makes its replacement somewhat lower in its worship. It does not make it invalid, nor does it discredit, but it simply must follow that if you remove prayers and penances, psalms and the pleading assistance of Saints and Angels then you have lowered its degree of worship. If you turn a ritual that is focused totally on God to one that is more focused on ourselves as is often the case, you cannot help but lower its meaning and its efficaciousness.

This is not to say that all people who attended the former before or now are holier or that those people who do not are less than so. This is not the Pharisee versus the Tax Collector. But, externals are important. The lex orendi, lex credendi, the manner of how our prayer of prayer becomes or influences how we believe is a fact of our sensual nature. If coming in to Mass I am struck with a deep sense of adoration and prayer and worship then I too can be lead to that same sense of deep contemplation and mystery with the meta-physical and the Triune God. If we offer to God and to the people less than that because of our laziness then what are we truly able to gain from it?

Setting aside the currently used banality of the ICEL translation, even the Latin original of the Second Eucharistic Prayer neglects to even mention sacrifice. Before the Holy Mass is a banquet it is a sacrifice. We eat the Eucharist, truly it is a meal, but before that it is an offering—a sacrifice which is made most clear in the Roman Canon or First Eucharistic Prayer. The Mass is first and foremost the re-presentation to the Atonement of Christ the Lamb, sacrificed for us and pre-figured by Abraham (the father) and Isaac carrying the sticks for the sacrifice as Christ carried His Cross. The heavenly Father then provided a substitute sacrifice for Isaac again prefiguring Christ crucified. The blood of the lambs on the doorposts and lintels in Egypt prefigured the sacrifice of Christ at Calvary. The blood of the lambs—pesach, covered the people and saved them from death—just as the blood atonement of Jesus on Calvary covered the sins of the people. All of these sacrifices, those which pre-figured Christ and the one, true and everlasting one of Jesus are made clear in the usus antiquior consistently everywhere. This sacrificial dimension is less clear in the more modern liturgical expression of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. It is there and it can be made clear but it takes more attention on the part of the Priest and Levitical Ministers—liturgists, lectors, cantors. If one sings the Gregorian Propers in English but more particularly in the Latin from the 1972 Graduale Romanum (for the Novus Ordo), one uses the I confess as the Penitential Rite, the Roman Canon or First Eucharistic Prayer and as well if the priest and people face the same direction for the Liturgy of the Eucharist together with the use of incense then the lines are not as blurred. One can also conclude that the number of options and the substitution of the Propers with hymns many of which are not theologically sound combined with the invasion of secular forms of music, contributes profoundly to this deficiency.

To justify the statement that the “The Extraordinary Form is the fullest form of Catholic worship to God,” must be carefully addressed so as not to alienate. The rancour over “which Mass is better” must be avoided. It follows though that if one takes the position that one Form is higher than another then one who prefers another Form could take a position that the former is an elitist or dismissive of other forms of Catholic worship or indeed is becoming pharisaical. But this is not the case. In the EF, we are familiar with the terms High Mass and Low Mass to describe the difference between a Missa Solemnis or Missa Cantata and Missa Lecta. Therefore, we have always acknowledged that there is something “higher.”

Make no mistake. The Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite is the normal manner of worship in the Catholic Church. It is edifying and can be celebrated with great beauty and solemnity. This has been proven in Minneapolis at St. Agnes, in Chicago at St. John Cantius in Toronto at The Oratory and in little churches and big cathedrals throughout the world. However, it contains within its basic structure rubrical deficiencies, casualness, variety and a false interpretation that has lead to abuses and as Pope Benedict XVI has himself called, "deformities." Going forward, we simply cannot continue with the same practice undertaken since 1970 or the shenanigans and experimentation with the 1965 Missal. Nor is this to say that there were no abuses prior to the reforms. Any priest that celebrated the Mass in 18 minutes or slurring the words was unfaithful to the liturgy, the need for Mass on the hood of an army jeep, notwithstanding. The fact that Mass is now said in the vernacular and facing the people has exposed Father Experimenter for what he is.

In conclusion, the Holy Father has said that the two Missals, that of 1962 and that of 1970/2002 (which we hope to see by 2012) are two Forms of the one Latin Rite. Legally speaking, both are equal, there is no difference. Objectively speaking, that is simply not possible and the future of the Ordinary is one where it will be shaped by the Extraordinary to bring it fully to the intent of the Fathers of the Council—The Reform of the Reform.

Part II

FURTHER READING:

The Ottaviani Intervention

The Day the Mass Changed Part 1 & 2--Adoremus Society

The Case for the Latin Mass--Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand

A Short History of the Roman Mass--Michael Davies

Reform of the Reform

From the Blog "Paix Liturgique"

SECOND AIM OF THE MOTU PROPRIO (Summorum Pontificum):
The Reform of the Reform

The increasing availability of Msgr Nicola Bux’s book The Reform of Benedict XVI [1] is an opportunity for us to depart somewhat from our usual focus on the application of the motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum” and to take stock of the “reform of the reform” that the Holy Pontiff has initiated in liturgy. It is also the occasion to consider what sort of relationship will slowly emerge between the two forms of the Roman liturgy.

The first aim of the motu proprio “Summorum Pontificum” is clear: to make it possible for the traditional Mass to be celebrated in every parish where it is requested. The MP will only truly be applied when we shall see the ten o’clock Sunday Mass celebrated in the ordinary form and the eleven o’clock Mass in the extraordinary form, or the reverse, in the cathedrals of Dublin or Detroit, as well as in the cathedrals of Boise or Aberdeen. In a word: as far as the MP’s application is concerned, we are still on the starting line.

A – The “Reform of the Reform” Project
The second aim of the MP, though implicit, is nonetheless obvious because of all that Cardinal Ratzinger has said on the subject in the past and because of the wish expressed in the 2007 text: a “mutual enrichment” of the two forms, which from that point coexist officially. Enrichment: everybody knows that the more obviously “rich” form is that which benefits from an uninterrupted, ten-centuries long tradition (or even seventeen-centuries long for its essential part, the canon), and whose doctrinal and ritual value is at least similar to that of the other great Catholic liturgies. In his book, Nicola Bux writes: “Comparative studies demonstrate that the Roman liturgy in its preconciliar form was far closer to the Oriental liturgy than is the current liturgy.” This is so much the case that no one can seriously contemplate denying that the form that needs to be enriched/transformed first and foremost is the liturgy that was hastily contrived forty years ago. Indeed, as Nicola Bux points out, “[one] has to admit that the Mass of Paul VI is far from containing all that is found in the missal of Saint Pius V.”

It has thus become customary to call “reform of the reform” this project of enrichment/transformation of Paul VI’s reform with a view to making it more traditional in content and form. Although it would be an exaggeration to say that the reform of the reform is only on the order of a pious wish, one must nevertheless fully understand that it is only—somewhat like the extraordinary form—at its beginnings.

Two preliminary observations about this future process come to mind:

1. The reform of the reform, as the expression indicates, concerns only the reform of Paul VI. It in no way involves an alleged “parallel” transformation of the traditional form of the rite. There is no comparison between the two forms in their relation to tradition or in their ritual structure. Fiddling with the traditional rite would truly sink it and everyone would come away a loser: the reform of the reform would see its backbone collapse. In any event, Cardinal Ratzinger has already clearly and prudently rejected the idea. [2]

2. Add to this that the reform of the reform does not seek to implement a series of reforms through laws and decrees with a view to establishing a third missal halfway between the Tridentine missal and the new one (not to mention that the latter is much more of an indefinite, diverse and open-ended collection than a “missal” in the traditional sense). Cardinal Ratzinger in the past, Pope Benedict XVI today, is averse to implementing a process of authoritarian and continual reforms akin—though in reverse—to what was done under the reform of Paul VI. The point is rather to undertake a gradual narrowing of the gap, the missal of Paul VI becoming progressively closer to the traditional missal. The new liturgy’s characteristic of being malleable at will allows this to occur effortlessly: its non-normative character paradoxically permits it to be infused with the traditional norm it lacks. One may legitimately wonder whether, at the end of the process, it will preserve any interest besides that of serving as a steppingstone to the traditional liturgy...

B – The book by Nicola Bux
The import of this book’s publication is due first of all to its author’s stature. Msgr Nicola Bux, professor of liturgy and sacramental theology at the Ecumenical-Patristic Institute of Theology of Bari in Italy, is a consultor for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and for the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, consultor too for the Bureau of Liturgical Celebrations for the Supreme Pontiff, advisor to the journal Communio, author of many books (notably Il Signore dei Misteri. Eucaristia e relativismo—The Lord of Mysteries: Eucharist and Relativism [Siena: Cantagalli, 2005]) and of many articles (e.g. “À soixante ans de l’encyclique Mediator Dei de Pie XII, débattre sereinement sur la liturgie”—“Sixty Years After Pius XII’s Encyclical Mediator Dei. On the Liturgy: A Debate Without Prejudice,” Osservatore Romano, 18 November 2007). And he is one of the most influential partisans of the reform of Paul VI’s reform.

Others deserve to be named in his company, such as Fr. Alcuin Reid (The Organic Development of the Liturgy [Saint Michael’s Abbey Press, 2004]), Fr. U. Michael Lang (Turning Towards the Lord. Orientation in Liturgical Prayer [Ignatius Press, 2004]), Msgr Nicola Giampietro (who published the memoirs of Cardinal Antonelli, Apoc 2004), Bishop Athanasius Schneider (Dominus est. It Is the Lord [Newman House Press, 2009]), Fr. Aidan Nichols (Looking At the Liturgy : a Critical View Of Its Contemporary Form [Ignatius Press, 1996]), and Dom Mauro Gagliardi (Liturgia, Fonte di Vita [Fede&Cultura, 2009]), not to mention the initiatives promoted by Father Manelli and the Franciscans of the Immaculate and, of course, the daily action of such important prelates as Archbishop Ranjith, Archbishop Burke, Cardinal Cañizares, et al.

Msgr Bux’s book also benefits from three forewords: one by the famous Italian journalist Vittorio Messori (author of the Ratzinger Report, an interview with then Cardinal Ratzinger) for the Italian edition; one by Marc Aillet, bishop of Bayonne, for the French edition; another by the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship himself, Cardinal Cañizares, for the Spanish edition.

For Nicola Bux, the crisis that wounded the Roman liturgy is due to its no longer being centered upon God and his adoration, but on people and the community. “At the beginning is adoration, and therefore that is where God is (...) The Church stems from adoration, from the mission of glorifying God,” Joseph Ratzinger had written on this subject. The crisis in liturgy begins the moment it ceases to be an adoration, when it is reduced to the celebration of a specific community in which priests and bishops, instead of being ministers, that is, servants, become “leaders”. This is why today “people are requesting more and more respect to ensure a private space of silence, with a view to an intimate faith participation in the sacred mysteries.”

The order of the day, then, is once again to teach a clergy wounded in its ritual praxis and consciousness that liturgy is sacred and divine, that it comes down from above as does the liturgy of the heavenly Jerusalem in the Apocalypse. “In this connection, there ought to be efforts made to find out why, despite appearances, the vernacular is at the end of the day unsuccessful in making the liturgy understandable.” The priest needs to be taught once again how to carry out the holy mysteries in persona Christi, in the Church, as its minister, and not as the coordinator of an assembly that is closed in on itself, which is what he has become.

C – The Reform Of the Reform Project:
Leading By Example Rather Than By Legislative Texts

Despite the seriousness of the conclusion reached by Msgr Bux in particular and by the “Pope’s men” in general—a conclusion that is in keeping with the Holy Father’s thinking in the matter—none of them wants laws and decrees designed to overturn everything in an authoritarian manner, as did those of the Bugnini era. Even though the Church today is quite ill, liturgically speaking, they prefer to act with the sweet medicine of example: the Supreme Pontiff’s example in the first place, then that of those bishops who will be willing to show the example as he does.

And so Benedict XVI multiplies corrective nudges that seem only to affect trifling matters, to be sure; after all, the liturgy is made up only of a collection of details: the very dignified manner of pontifical celebrations; the beauty of the liturgical vestments from St. Peter’s sacristy, which the pontifical master of ceremonies, Msgr Guido Marini, is using once more; the placement of large candlesticks on the altar, which diminish the theatrical effect of facing the people; above all, the distribution of Communion on the tongue, kneeling.

It is up to the bishops to follow suit in their liturgical celebrations. It is a matter of public knowledge that Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, Archbishop of Bologna, one of Italy’s theologically solid bishops, has recently decided in an April 27, 2009 ruling that “in view of the frequency with which irreverent attitudes are reported in the act of receiving the Eucharist,” he was deciding “that from this day forward, in the metropolitan church of San Pietro, in the basilica of San Petronio and in the shrine of the BVM of San Luca in Bologna, the faithful are to receive the Consecrated Bread only from the hands of a minister directly onto the tongue.”

For their part both Bishop Schneider and Dom Mauro Gagliardi [3] ask for a strong reminder that the “normal” way is that of Communion in the mouth, and that Communion in the hand is only a “tolerated” way, even though it has remained the most widespread way for a good long time. Such an encouragement is very important for the rebirth of faith in the real presence. Respect for the divine and for the holy is expressed through signs of reverence, again according to Msgr Bux.

Yet, other points too are constantly brought up by the partisans of the reform of the reform; to wit:
—1. Encouragement to reduce the number of concelebrants, and even of concelebrations: “When it [concelebration] becomes to frequent, the mediating function of each priest as such is obscured.”
—2. Slow reduction of the manifold optional parts of the Mass (particularly the Eucharistic prayers, some of which present doctrinal problems).
—3. Reintroduction of elements of the extraordinary form that encourage the sense of the sacred and of adoration, such as genuflections, kisses on the altar, the very ancient signs of the cross in the Canon: “The sacred is also expressed in signs of the cross and genuflections” (N. Bux).
—4. And much else besides: a reminder that the kiss of peace is a sacred action and not a manifestation of middle-class civility; the massive reintroduction of the liturgical language that is Latin, etc.

Lastly, and above all, one mustn’t overlook the encouragement given to the priest to celebrate facing the Lord, at least during the offertory and the Eucharistic prayer. “The most visible indicator of the liturgical reform,” says Msgr Bux, “was the change in the priest’s position with respect to the people.” In light of these words, one can legitimately reckon the beginning of the reform of the reform from the time when the Pope and the bishops will commonly celebrate towards the Lord.

D – The Spearhead of the Reform of the Reform Project
In his book, Nicola Bux notes that the key of the new liturgy as it left the offices of Bugnini—the author of the liturgical reform—is adaptation to the world. This is the point on which Bux’s thinking, in unison with that of the reform of the reform partisans, is at its most radical: the essence of Catholic liturgy is to be “as a permanent critique that the Church addresses to the world, while the world continually seeks to convince her to belong to it.” Therefore one must bear in mind that revolution is not reform: “the reform cannot be understood as a reconstruction attempt according to the tastes of a specific time.”

That is why Msgr Bux quotes at length, and comments on, the “Ottaviani Intervention” published soon after the Council by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci. “They deplored,” he recalls in approval of the two Italian cardinals, “the absence of the normal finality of the Mass, that is to say, propitiatory sacrifice.” Indeed it would take a blind man not to notice that the new rite of the Mass has a de facto effect of immanentizing the Christian message: the doctrine of propitiatory sacrifice, the adoration of the Real Presence of Christ, the specificity of the hierarchical priesthood and generally the sacred character of the Eucharistic celebration are expressed in a far less tangible way than in the traditional rite. That is why attempts to reintroduce the prayers that best express its sacrificial value (see, e.g., the book amounting to a manifesto along these lines by Fr. Paul Tirot, OSB: Histoire des prières d’offertoire dans la liturgie romaine du VIIe au XVIe siècle—History of the Offertory Prayers in the Roman Liturgy From the Seventh to the Sixteenth Century [Edizione Liturgiche, 1985]) into the new Missal are on the rise today.

If, therefore, there is a point on which one can expect legislation to promote the reform of the reform project, it is certainly this: the possibility of introducing the traditional Roman Offertory prayers into the ordinary celebration.

In sum, if this plan were truly to take shape, the inverse situation to what happened between 1965 and 1969 might eventually develop: to that time of brutal transformation when everything changed in a ‘progressive’ direction might correspond a period of slow evolution during which everything would change in a resacralizing direction.

Such an implementation of the reform of the reform would thus be truly reformative, in the traditional (and quite demanding!) sense of the term ‘reform’. It would proceed by ‘contamination’, to use a term familiar to historians of the liturgy when they mean to speak of one liturgy’s influence over another. In this case, it would be that of the traditional liturgy on the new.

In fact, one might even claim that the extraordinary form is perhaps the only chance to save the ordinary form in the long term, precisely by enabling it to become less and less ordinary. It might then become a step by which to reach the extraordinary liturgy. In any event, it would in no way compete with the extraordinary form, but would rather provide it with a far more favorable environment for its dissemination and its affirmation as the official form of reference.

[1] Until an English version is published, Msgr Bux’s book is available in its original version from its Italian publisher, Piemme.

[2] During the 2001 liturgical days of Fontgombault, Cardinal Ratzinger had stated that there was no question, doubtless for a long time, of touching the Tridentine missal, essentially because its presence and life today could serve as a goad to an evolution of the new missal. This “line” is today clearly that of the Congregation for Divine Worship and of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, which hold that the introduction of the new lectionary into the traditional rite is impossible, for example. The only adjustment of the traditional rite that can be envisioned, according to the Roman liturgists, might be the introduction of a few new prefaces.

[3] Interview granted to zenit.org on December 21, 2009.

The Restoration of Catholic Quebec

Shawn Tribe at the New Liturgical Movement has a post up about the second parish in Quebec to be provided to the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter.

The church is Saint-Zéphirin-de-Stadacona and the first Mass will be on New Years Day.

God bless the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter.

Now that's two in Quebec and two in Ontario...wait, Ontario needs to be ahead in this...

For your edification and sanctification

"The dispensing of Christ's Body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because, as was said above, he consecrates in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His Body at the Supper, so also He gave it to others to be partaken of by them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ's Body belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him. Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people, hence as it belongs to him to offer the people's gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver the consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches it but what is consecrated, hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it, except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency."

Thomas Aquinas, Saint and Doctor of the Church ST, III, Q. 82, Art. 13.

+++

Bishop Athanasius Schneider visited Estonia December 10, 2009, for the publication of his book Dominus est in Estonian. After the presentation, Bishop Schneider celebrated a Missa Cantata in the Cathedral of Saints Peter and Paul.

In the book presentation the Bishop explained how the present form of hand communion has nothing to do with the practise of hand communion in the early centuries. The new way was adapted by some liberal priests in Holland directly from the Calvinists in 1965.

The Bishop ultimately decided to write a book defending the traditional way of receiving Holy Communion, and when the work was finished he gave a manuscript to the Holy Father. The Pope wrote back to the Bishop praising the work and his accuracy of knowledge of the patristics.

Bishop Schneider told he had also asked the Pope to stop distributing Communion in the hand in Papal Masses, and even if the Pope's answer was supportive it was not certain that it would happen. But since only a few months later, all communicants have been asked to receive Holy Communion from the Pope only kneeling and on the tongue. A true miracle, says Bishop Schneider.
Reprinted from the source blog Summorum—Rippumaton Blogi Katolisesta Liturgiasta with their translation from the original Estonian.

+++

"What does it mean to receive communion in the mouth? What does it mean to kneel before the Most Holy Sacrament? What does it mean to kneel during the consecration at Mass? It means adoration, it means recognizing the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist; it means respect and an attitude of faith of a man who prostrates before God because he knows that everything comes from Him, and we feel speechless, dumbfounded, before the wondrousness, his goodness, and his mercy. That is why it is not the same to place the hand, and to receive communion in any fashion, than doing it in a respectful way; it is not the same to receive communion kneeling or standing up, because all these signs indicate a profound meaning. What we have to grasp is that profound attitude of the man who prostrates himself before God, and that is what the Pope wants.

Antonio Cardinal Cañizares Llovera, PREFECT OF THE CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP AND THE SACRAMENTSOriginal Spanish source
From the Hermeneutic of Continuity

+++

[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice, if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.
From INSTRUCTION REDEMPTIONIS SACRAMENTUM: On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist - CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENT.
161. If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the priest raises the host slightly and shows it to each, saying, Corpus Christi (The Body of Christ). The communicant replies, Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed and if the communicant so chooses, in the hand. As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes it entirely.
From INSTITUTIO GENERALIS MISSALIS ROMANI (GENERAL INSTRUCTION OF THE ROMAN MISSAL).

+++

+++

Does your Canadian parish eliminate the Alleluia verse?

Based on that old Toronto corporate slogan, "an educated consumer is our best customer," Vox Cantoris is creating a new file; but moving forward, we'll subsitute consumer for catholic. If anyone can recall which company used this expression, please let me know in the comment box.

It seems that the pedagogical formation of most of us as it pertains to the sacred liturgy in both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Roman Rite is sadly lacking. Worse, it does not seem to be much better with most clergy.

Something which I have noticed in the last couple of years at different parishes during the week; Sometimes the lector, and not usually with a good voice but here's marks for doing it, sings the Alleluia. At other parishes where it is not sung then the Alleluia or Praise and its Acclamation are all omitted. Yet, elsewhere where it is not sung, it is read. Deciding then to do a little research on this matter I found a few interesting details.

Let us take a look at what I have found:

First, let us read what the General Instruction on the Roman Missal states in English and then in its original Latin:

63. When there is only one reading before the Gospel, during a season when the Alleluia is to be said, either the Alleluia Psalm or the Responsorial Psalm followed by the Alleluia with its verse may be used;
During the season when the Alleluia is not to be said, either the psalm and the verse before the Gospel or the psalm alone may be used;
The Alleluia or verse before the Gospel may be omitted if they are not sung.

63. Quando una tantum habetur lectio ante Evangelium:
tempore quo dicendum est Allelúia, haberi potest aut psalmus alleluiaticus, aut psalmus et Allelúia cum suo versu;
tempore quo Allelúia non est dicendum, haberi potest aut psalmus et versus ante Evangelium aut psalmus tantum.
Allelúia vel versus ante Evangelium, si non cantantur, omitti possunt.

Nota bene: the word here to pay attention to is possunt which means, "can" or "be able (to)".

Now, let us examine what is in the new Canadian Lectionary and which you will commonly find in your little paperback missalette published by Novalis--the Living with Christ paper missal. Now, you can check this for yourself the next time you go to Church, you don't need to take my word for it.

Go to GOSPEL ACCLAMATION for any day and note the italicised sentence.

"If the Alleluia is not sung, the acclamation is omitted." and during Lent, "If the Praise is not sung, the acclamation is omitted."

If this is the case and the document actually says that the Alleluia "can" or is "able" to be omitted if not sung, why in the Canadian Church has the CCCB and its publishers replaced this with the word "is"? I mean, "is" omitted is a lot different than "can be" or "able to be" omitted.

So, the next time you go to Church and you wonder why after the Responsorial Psalm the Alleluia is omitted now you know why.

The CCCB and its publishers have told the priests that if not sung then the Alleluia and its Acclamation "is" to be omitted and unless the priest has read the GIRM then he does not know that it is not mandator, the Alleluia and Acclamation can clearly be proclaimed if not sung!

And you, the laity follow what is going on and it is reinforced every time you open that little paper missalette. Once again, you have been liturgically lead astray. Let's see, how many times is that now?

I will be asking this question to the good people at Novalis, I'll let you know their response.