www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Should priests vest as deacons and serve as such?

Because there aren't. They have been subsumed by the priest. According to the rubrics, only the words of the priest are efficacious. The people may say or sing things, or they may not, but it does not matter either way. Hence, you can have a "silent low Mass"--something that would have puzzled the Fathers to no end. Hence the old colloquialisms, "The priest said Mass" and The people heard Mass".

What exactly do you mean by "efficacious"?

Only the priest's words "count".

"Count" as what? Only through the power of Holy Orders the Holy Spirit transforms bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. The congregation doesn't have that power.

Peter--I think what Stuart means is that the priest says everything during (the pre-VII) Mass, even the people's parts: ie. Gloria, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, etc.

So as an example, at a solemn high Mass on a Sunday, the Gloria takes place when the priest, deacon, and sub-deacon are saying it, even though the choir may be singing a Palestrina Mass or the whole assembly is singing a chant version of it, at the same time. Once the clergy are done reciting it at the altar, they go and sit down and wait until the musical version is finished. He doesn't simply intone it and then sit and listen like the people are. The choir or assembly are musically embellishing what the priest has already done/said.

I hope this helps clarify.

The Gloria, Sanctus and Agnus Dei etc. in the local SSPX chapel are sung in an interweaved manner - one verse is sung by the priest, then one by the congregation, then another by the priest, etc.

At the indult Mass we indeed had a choir singing independently from the priest.

But in the local UGCC church things look like taken out straight from a bugninist depiction of pre-V2 Roman liturgy - the priest is singing (or he is rather speaking with some syllabes prolonged), the choir is singing very loud, the congregation is just gazing in silence. A few try to murmur something timidly, a few play with babies in the back, many people arrive late, most are just bored and wait for the liturgy to finish. At least this is my impression.

John K, I think I understand, but I don't get why is it so important? What happens when there's no congregation at all, or when the congregation is unable/unwilling to sing the efficacious parts intended for the people, for whatever reasons?

Stuart,

I think the question here is not whether or not it would cease to be the Tridentine Mass as most people understand it, but whether or not it would be the best possible realization of the liturgical tradition of the RCC. Some people--admittedly not all--are more flexible than you give them credit for, and I contend that their attachment to the EF is as I stated in my previous post.

I would contend that Low Mass--and even "private Mass"--need not be so much suppressed as properly understood to be exceptions and not the norm. The fully-chanted parochial liturgy should be considered normative for the entire Church, and within the Latin Rite, the Lord's Prayer, as well as the Introit, Gradual, Alleluia/Tract, Communion Antiphon and Postcommunion, should be recognized as properly belonging to the people. (And, oh yes, that little Low Mass rubric that places the Communion Antiphon after the distribution of Communion and right before the Postcommunion should be suppressed.)

All this, IMHO, would constitute housecleaning, not a substantial change to the rite.

WRT the notion that only the priest's words are "efficacious," I would be surprised if that can be found in the actual rubrics. However, I will admit that the notion was so well ingrained that it was regarded as normative. Certainly, as you pointed out, the expressions "saying" Mass and "hearing" Mass helped to reinforce this notion.


And, FWIW, I'd like to go back to an earlier post:
This is an interesting statement. If you'd be interested in elaborating on it (in a different thread), I'd like to hear what you have to say.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

The problem, Father Deacon, is that the faithful demanding it want it as it was, unchanged, uncorrected to the theology, doctrine, and dogma.

For many, it's "Tradition with a capital T is what was done the day my grandfather was slapped by the bishop..."

And then they promptly ignore the various rounds of tiny but important changes... mom dated all the penciled changes in her 1950 missal.

That long ago?

Aramis,

I agree that it is a problem. As I mentioned in an earlier post, there is a widespread misconception that V2 is the negation of RC tradition, and RC tradition is the negation of V2. (This explains, for one thing, the incredible hostility of the clergy toward both the TLM and the Latin language in the post-V2 period.) Therefore, many who feel a longing for tradition cannot see why it should be necessary to change anything from the way it was done before V2, which they wrongly believe to be unchanged from the time of Trent.

My point was simply that it was possible to use the 1962 Missal in a way that was consistent with SC, and that by so doing one would have a better expression of the RC tradition than either the OF or the EF as it is normally celebrated.

(This would, of course, include the use of only real deacons to serve as deacons, IAW the topic of this thread )


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Most of them consider the 1917 CIC and Catholic encyclopedia the definition of "truth for all time"... and many of them are younger than I, and my grandfather was confirmed in the 1920's...

Fond early childhood memories?

Aramis, your experience doesn't match my experience here in New York City with people who value or prefer the traditional Mass. We do have the SSPX here (and another Spanish speaking "independent" group in Queens), but they are a few people who meet at a private club once a week. On the other hand, the Latin Mass people I know attend Sunday Mass at close to a dozen parishes in this city, follow the current code of Canon Law, read Balthasar as well as Aquinas, Schmemann with Stehle, Meyendorff with Michael Davies, and Taft with TAN.

I'd beg all the members of this forum to consider that they only know a small piece of the world and not to go round destabilizing through harsh words or pressure for hasty reform, etc. the hard work of "traditionalists" or whatever you want to call them who have spent years working in communion with their bishops and their pastors and their spiritual fathers and their Pope to reestablish the 1962 liturgy.

The generalizations, myths, and misunderstandings are thick on the ground. The Low Mass is not silent. The responses of the people are REQUIRED not ineffectual, though they may be made by a server. "Singers in church have a real liturgical office" to quote St. Pius X. They are not just "embellishing" what the priest has already done.

The post 1950-1962 liturgical changes and their highly varied reception and therefore canonical status are for many of us a regular topic of study on a practical basis for the enactment of the ceremonies. The normal process of clarification and adaption having been cut off, there's a lot that's unclear about them. For a long time, it was thought, for instance that the biretta had been made optional in 1960. This now appears to be a mistake based on a misunderstanding of the Latin of the rubrics. This sort of discussion and active engagement is the very opposite of ignoring them.

J:
Unfortunately, my local experience is strongly reinforced by what the so-called traditionalists themselves advocate online, and the photos online of the EF.

One can see readily that the Dominican Latin masses are attracting mostly people too young to have been exposed prior to the adoption of the Pauline missal. Many photos from the SSPX, SSPV, ICRSS, a FSSP masses show most of the grey up at the Altar, not in the pews. And not just in the US.

While the brush may be broad, the visible portion of the movement is pretty drastically living up to it.

I completely agree that the traditionalist movement (for lack of a better term) is attracting young people.

But the burden is on you to explain why this is a problem.

The Pope and the Curia have been clear that the permissions for the use of the 1962 books are for the good of the whole church, not just for those old enough to remember them from 1962.

Cardinal Cañizares of the CDW writes [ncregister.com] [my emphases]:


The proportion of grey on the altar is rapidly diminishing by the way. The Deacon who served as Deacon at our midnight Mass here in New York City this past December and on the feast of St. Patrick is being ordained to the priesthood tomorrow and is celebrating a Solemn Mass according to the 1962 Missal next weekend [hughofcluny.blogspot.com].

You can't establish from pictures of Masses or even from internet comments that "Most of them consider the 1917 CIC and Catholic encyclopedia the definition of 'truth for all time'" or that "For many, it's 'Tradition with a capital T is what was done the day my grandfather was slapped by the bishop...'".

Furthermore, just as "traditionalists" can't go around claiming that the OF is evil or bad, people who prefer it cannot legitimately insist that the EF requires correction to its "dogma". That's tantamount to accusing the Pope and curia of encouraging heretical worship.