There is a two-part interview and story in the California Catholic Daily with Mary Ann Carr Wilson: 1 and 2. Mary Ann has grown up with the growth of the chant movement in this country, having attended the Sacred Music Colloquium when it was small and fledgling and coming most years since, and watching as it became large, evangelistic, and musically sophisticated.
The big change in her musical life came when she was tapped to provide musical direction for an FSSP parish. Now she is in charge of music for extraordinary form Masses.
And this is interesting:
What I like about the Extraordinary Form is:
1.) It’s less prone to abuse because less options; the culture of obedience is stronger and more stable than a culture of options
2.) There is an explicit and rich Catholic identity in all prayers
3.) There are beautiful, theologically rich Offertory prayers, excised in the Ordinary Form
4.) The sung Gradual and Alleluia are more conducive to meditation and recollection than the Responsorial Psalm and Gospel Acclamation, often poorly composed ditties.
5.) I especially don’t miss the Prayers of the Faithful or the Sign of Peace as they are often experienced in parishes.
6.) This is valid in both forms, but I appreciate praying in the same direction as the priest, who faces liturgical east. Feels more like the Church moving
together, led by the priest as shepherd and father, in the person of Christ.7.) The full use of Gregorian propers. Valid in both forms, but more
common to experience in the Extraordinary Form.8.) I appreciate the use of the communion rail and receiving our Lord kneeling and from a priest or deacon. Personally I am able to recollect more this way.
9.) I do not miss cluttered sanctuaries with tons of lay people and concelebrating priests. Though I know the Church allows much of this, to me it obscures the Mass.
What I don’t like about the Extraordinary Form:
1.I miss singing the Pater Noster
2.) I wish the entrance was the Introit, for which it was composed, often neglected in both Ordinary and Extraordinary forms.
On the last two points, it’s my understanding that having the people sing the Pater Noster is now permitted in the extraordinary form, but overcoming a local tradition can be difficult. As for the introit, she is so right about this. The Asperges is to come before the introit only on the primary Mass on Sunday but this is the very Mass that most often uses the sung Introit too. I’m not sure there is a way to use the Introit as the entrance under these conditions.
As to her last point, that is how it used to be done. According to Gueranger, the Introit contained an entire psalm, as opposed to just one verse of a psalm like today, together with the antiphon that's repeated. The Introit was sung while the priest entered and then said the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar. The priest in those days did not read at the altar the parts sung by the choir (the various antiphons, Gloria, and Credo).
When the practice was introduced that the priest would read what the choir sang, the Introit was shortened to it's current length. When deciding at what point the priest would read it, it was decided to be after the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, even though one could argue that placing the Inroit before the prayers would be better.
It's either say the Introit at a point that seems rather late, or "enter" the Altar, greeting the Lord with the Introit, then "exit" the Altar for the penitential prayers that purify the priest in order for him to be able to enter. There's a downside either way at a Low Mass. The first (saying it late) seems to have less disruption in the logic, since the priest's actual "entrance" into the Altar is that late, which is no doubt why the Church mandates that option.
At a High Mass, however, it's easy to do it the old way where the Introit actually is the entrance and at the same time there is no disruption in the order of events. We just need Rome to make the Introit long again. I have no idea how the Asperges was done in those days.
Hi,
One can for sure prefer EF over OF, but most of what is said here can be implemented in OF.
One strangeness of the EF is the priest reciting the ordinary and proper while being sung, which clearly is not how liturgy worked during the first millenium, at least.
I'd be interested in knowing is such a thing happens with oriental liturgies.
I have no idea how the Asperges was done in those days.
If you have more than a single Sung Mass a week on Sundays, the introit can be the entrance music just fine the rest of the days. Sunday's just different because of the Asperges.
While there are a couple of private replies from Ecclesia Dei permitting the singing of the Pater Noster by the Congregation in Sung EF Masses, it's not in the rubrics themselves (it is for reciting it at dialogue Masses). Whether it's a good idea requires quite a bit of examination beyond just an intuitive feeling that we like it or not.
One can for sure prefer EF over OF, but most of what is said here can be implemented in OF
I think the problem here is that far too many accept the premise that the Ordinary Form is supposed to be strikingly different from the EF… more "modern", less "formal"… and so while it is true that most of what Mary Ann is speaking about loving in the EF is equally valid in the OF, there is a great resistance to making the OF more like the EF, at least for now there is.
Though I have rarely seen this done, I have experienced where the celebrating priest/servers will enter from the Gospel side of the altar, either in silence or to brief organ music, begin the Asperges, proceed to vest upon concluding the Asperges as is customary, and then begin the procession by proceeding down a side aisle and up the center while the Introit is sung. This has worked particularly well when an Introit is followed by a polyphonic Kyrie which requires more time, and allows for added verses for the Introit if a shorter Kyrie is sung, particularly if there will be incensations. I have found this to work much better than having the procession prior to the Asperges, as people are able to experience the procession with the processional character of the Introit intact, and is much less awkward than singing a processional hymn can be. This way also incorporates the circumambulation that Charles was speaking of in a previous post.
This is a wonderfully encouraging article/interview which gives a balanced view of chant's place in liturgy and the prayer of the church and how Latin repertoire and chant together with polyphony, where possible, can be the "sacred bridge" across cultures. Reading the fully article in the California Daily Catholic is worth the time.
I don't really mind not singing Pater Noster in EF. When I hear priest chanting by himself, it reminds me of our Lord teaching the prayer to the faithful.
(Also there are many other occasions we can sing Pater Noster together. Either way is fine with me personally.)
I love EF. I enter into a different spiritual level when I'm in EF. I'm sure OF can be done reverently as is done at the Colloquium. But that's the only exception so far for me.
I watched a video clip yesterday that showed 'a day with Holy Father.' He celebrates morning Mass with a small number of staff members in a private chapel. It was OF, but in Ad Orientem. Whether it is geographical East or symbolic, they all face the same direction.
It was beautiful.
Thanks for the article,
Mia
I am hoping that there will soon be an official statement regarding the Pater Noster sung by the faithful in an EF Mass, perhaps in that long over-due clarification from Ecclesia Dei.
In my parish, the choir remains silent, but we have many folks who join the celebrant to sing it. Because the choir is obliged to follow the rubrics, there is some confusion and hesitation on the part of the faithful, and one cannot officially tell them what to do one way or another. The choir would be more than happy to sing the beautiful Pater Noster.
"one cannot officially tell them what to do one way or another."
That was kind of my point. There are private replies permitting the singing of the Pater Noster by the congregation, but the rubrics remain clear, the priest sings his part and the congregation sings theirs (and the priest says "Amen" secretly). If uniformity is (as would be reasonable) desired, the priest can study the issue, take into account the sensibilities of all the parishoners and make a ruling one way or the other on what the practice will be and then given instructions on what is to be done.
This is a great post.
A few thoughts:
1. I actually think the PATER NOSTER sounds much better when sung by the priest alone. However, there's certainly nothing to stop the laity from singing it as a group outside of Mass, for instance, before meals. I think the PATER NOSTER chant sounds better as a solo chant, which seems to be the way it developed.
2. I believe that, in the EF, the entire congregation sings the PATER NOSTER along with the priest on Good Friday. Correct me if I am wrong.
3. I have known numerous "EF" priests who allow the Introit to be sung as the processional piece "as the priest approaches the altar." If my memory is correct, the rubrics for the Introit have changed slightly over the last 120 years (under St. Pius X and then Pius XII). Correct me if I am wrong?
Jeff O, I believe you're correct about #2. This being a result of the reformed Holy Week rites.
In the sung EF Votive Requiem Mass and on All Souls' Day the Introit is sung as the priest processes up the aisle, but with an actual funeral when the Subvenite is sung as the body is taken into the church, the Introit is sung right after the Subvenite but the priest is already at the altar.
Dove Pierce
In the EF the Pater Noster, until the "sed libera nos" is reserved to the priest. On Good Friday, before the Pius XII reform, the priest sang the Pater and recited the embolism aloud. The reformed rite requires the people to join with the priest in reciting (not singing) the Pater. In the OF it may be sung by priest and people together. In all other masses the custom of everyone saying or singing the Pater is post-1965 and therefore not part of the EF.
@John Nolan: That is not correct. De Musica Sacra in 1958 made clear (¶ 32), "In Missis lectis totum Pater noter, cum apta sit et antiqua precatio ad Communionem, a fidelibus una cum sacerdote celebrante recitari potest". Certainly that was not a brand-new innovation, but a recognition of what was already going on at the time.
So everyone reciting the Pater Noster at a low Mass is definitely pre-1965, and definitely part of the EF. Where the case seems to be more marginal is with respect to singing it at a high Mass.
@Mark Thompson: You are quite right, even to the concluding Amen being said aloud by all. Odd to find such an important rubrical change tucked away in an instruction on sacred music. I don't recall it ever being done and I started serving Mass in 1959. Is it in the rubrics of the 1962 MR? Was it something that local ordinaries had to approve, like the Missa Recitata recommended by the SCR in 1935? I wouldn't want to stick my neck out and try it next time I attend EF Low Mass!