|
|
Post by melancholicus on Feb 24, 2010 21:01:23 GMT
Continued from here: irishcatholics.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=tlm&action=display&thread=39Taking Guillaume's advice, I have started a new thread to compare the old and new rites side by side. This thread is for textual comparison of the two rites; the subject of ethos and ars celebrandi will be considered separately. References to the text of the old rite will be in English for the sake of convenience. Sources:Rubrics of the Missal of 1962: www.sanctamissa.org/en/rubrics/Mass Ordinary of the Missal of 1962: www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/TRIDMASS.TXTGeneral Instruction of the Roman Missal (2002): www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.htmlMass Ordinary of the Missal of Paul VI (1975 edition): www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/mass.htmlAs the revised translation of the 2002 Missal has not yet come into general use, reference to and quotations from the English version of the current ordinary will depend on the translation currently in use. * * * The old and new rites both begin in the same manner, with a blessing: In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. So far so good. Immediately thereafter, there is a divergence. In the old rite the 'prayers at the foot of the altar' are recited. The priest begins with the versicle, I will go up to the altar of God. Straight away we have to do with sacrifice, for that is the function of an altar. This is the first of many references to sacrifice and oblation in the text of the old rite. This is followed by the recitation of psalm 42, the Judica me, which again mentions the altar of God (the versicle above is a verse taken from psalm 42). In fact the words I will go up to the altar of God are used no less than three times in the prayers at the foot of the altar. The Judica me is omitted during Passiontide and in Masses for the dead. The new rite begins with a greeting, for which three different options are provided in the missal. Immediately we have to do with a recurrent feature of the new liturgy, namely provision for multiple options at different parts of the Mass. The celebrant is at liberty to choose from these options according to his discretion. This is a feature not only of the Novus Ordo, but of modern liturgy generally; whereas the traditional Catholic and Anglican rites tended to be fixed and stable, with a set text containing few if any options, their modern replacements are characterized by a much greater freedom in the choice of liturgical formulae. This to my mind has generated a fluidity and instability in such rites, and has enormously facilitated the 'creativity' of celebrants and liturgy committees in composing their own 'options' and inserting these unapproved compositions into the liturgical text. Psalm 42, together with the introductory versicle I will go up to the altar of God did not make it into the text of the new rite. There is nothing inherently sinister in this omission; in fact psalm 42 had been dropped from the Mass Ordinary already in 1965, well before the new rite was imposed. As the tendency after the council was to revise the liturgy in the direction of 'noble simplicity' and the practice (as was believed) of the early Church, the use in the Mass of psalm 42—which began life in the Middle Ages as part of the celebrant's private preparation and was not included in the rite until the 13th century—was regarded as an innovation best pruned away. The versicle I will go up to the altar of God survived in the modified traditional rite of Mass until the arrival of the Novus Ordo. Its disappearance from the latter is unfortunate, and is part of a trend. As we progress through the Mass Ordinary of the new rite, we shall see that almost all the references to sacrifice and oblation contained in the old rite have either been dropped or modified. |
|
|
|
Post by melancholicus on Feb 24, 2010 21:31:32 GMT
Both the Judica me in the old rite and the greeting in the new are followed by a penitential rite. This takes different forms in each of the two rites.
The old rite contains what the liturgical revisers of the 1960s doubtless considered 'useless repetitions' (see Sacrosanctum Concilium, 34), because they changed it. The Confiteor was recited first by the priest (followed by a prayer for forgiveness of the priest's sins by the server/choir), and then recited separately by the server/choir/congregation, after which the priest grants an absolution. This dual Confiteor served the purpose of differentiating the priest from the people.
The new rite abolished the separate recitation of the Confiteor by first priest, then people, and replaced this arrangement with a common Confiteor to be recited simultaneously by everyone. The text of this Confiteor was modified not only to remove the distinction between priest and people (the priest is now 'brother' rather than 'father') but also to remove reference to St. Michael the Archangel, St. John the Baptist, and Ss Peter and Paul, all of whom were addressed directly in the previous version. The Blessed Virgin Mary survived, although she, together with the angels and saints, is no longer included in the roll of those to whom the people confess; they confess now only to 'almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters'.
The Latin fratres, which recurs passim throughout the rite, is regularly translated as 'brothers and sisters', in order to avoid giving offence to feminists. Not an egregious trespass, but a concession to the spirit of the age nonetheless. These little concessions add up, as we shall see.
This modified Confiteor need not be recited at all in celebrations of the new rite, and in my experience it is omitted more often than not. Once again, a number of options is available to the celebrant, from which he may choose according to his discretion. Many of these include a modified form of the Kyrie eleison, followed by the absolution.
|
|
|
|
Post by melancholicus on Feb 24, 2010 21:53:26 GMT
The old rite follows the dual Confiteor and absolution with a short series of versicles and responses which have not survived into the new rite, although there is an echo of them in one of the penitential options provided (Lord, show us your mercy and love / and grant us your salvation).
The priest then ascends to the altar, reciting two unobtrusive (since they are said in a low voice) but doctrinally significant prayers, the Aufer a nobis and the Oramus te.
The first of these beseeches the Most High to 'take away our iniquities, that we may merit to enter with pure minds into the Holy of Holies', recalling the High Priest of the Old Covenant and the sacrificial nature of the Temple ceremonies.
The second of these prayers refers to the merits of the saints, and contains direct reference to those saints 'whose relics are here'—namely, the saints whose relics are in the altar stone upon which the Mass is being celebrated.
Neither of these prayers is included in the new rite. The Oramus te has been suppressed since in the new rite it is no longer necessary to have an altar stone containing relics of the saints; such has become optional. Therefore there is no necessity for the priest to recite a prayer mentioning the saints 'whose relics are here', as they might very well not be.
The unfortunate omission of the altar stone and the prayer which goes with it deprives the rite of reference to the cult of the saints and of merit.
|
|
|
|
Post by melancholicus on Feb 24, 2010 22:13:09 GMT
The Introit
This is present in both rites, although in the new rite it is known as the 'Entrance Antiphon'. In both rites the text of the Introit varies with the proper of the day.
In the old rite the priest recites the Introit after he has ascended to the altar. It consists of an antiphon followed by a verse of a psalm, and by the Gloria Patri, after which the antiphon is repeated. The Introit may also be sung by the schola/choir, if there is one.
The Introit of the day is always recited in the old rite. In the new rite, it is provided for in the liturgical text, but in practice is omitted as often as not. In Masses with musical accompaniment, it is often sung while the celebrant and ministers are in procession to the altar. According to the most recent GIRM (§48), the Introit itself need not be sung at all; it can be replaced by 'a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the diocesan Bishop, including psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms;' or 'a suitable liturgical song similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the diocesan Bishop'.
This looseness allows pretty much anything—not necessarily a hymn or a solemn chant—to be substituted for the Entrance Antiphon just so long as this song appears in a source approved of by the bishop or the local conference (here in the US that means those awful OCP and GIA hymnals used in two-thirds of Catholic churches). Small wonder, under these circumstances, that we regularly find Mass beginning to the accompaniment of strange songs with strange lyrics, and that we can never privately practice the music for Mass in advance, since we have no idea what it will be. This is anti-liturgical, since the permission for it effectively relegates the Entrance Antiphon to the dustbin.
In the US, the Entrance Antiphon is not even so-called, when sung; here it has become the 'gathering song' which immediately affects the ethos of the Mass by placing the focus on the people and their 'gathering'.
|
|
|
|
Post by melancholicus on Feb 24, 2010 22:28:08 GMT
Kyrie eleison
In the old rite, this immediately follows the Introit. It is nine-fold, and is recited by the priest with server/choir/congregation alternating as follows:
P. Kyrie eleison.
R. Kyrie eleison.
P. Kyrie eleison.
R. Christe eleison.
P. Christe eleison.
R. Christe eleison.
P. Kyrie eleison.
R. Kyrie eleison.
P. Kyrie eleison.
Can be quite tricky at times, and requires concentration! I have fluffed the Kyrie on more than one occasion while serving Mass. Getting away from 'useless repetitions', the liturgical revisers reduced the nine-fold Kyrie to the much simpler
P. Kyrie eleison.
R. Kyrie eleison.
P. Christe eleison.
R. Christe eleison.
P. Kyrie eleison.
R. Kyrie eleison.
In the new rite, this Kyrie is omitted if it has already occurred in one of the options selected for the penitential rite. Of course it is much more common in celebrations of the new rite to hear the vernacular Lord have mercy / Christ have mercy than the Greek.
|
|
|
|
Post by melancholicus on Feb 24, 2010 22:44:48 GMT
Gloria in Excelsis Deo
The Greater Doxology occurs in both rites, although it is omitted on ferias, during the proper of time in Advent and Lent, in votive Masses and in Masses for the dead. In the new rite the Gloria is also omitted on feasts ranking below the second class.
The text of the Gloria is the same in both rites, although the current ICEL translation commonly heard in the new rite is not entirely satisfactory.
Absent from the new rite are the bows of the head the celebrant makes to the altar cross at specific points during the recitation of the Gloria—hardly surprising as there is seldom an altar cross in churches where the new rite is commonly celebrated—as well as the sign of the cross he makes when he reaches cum Sancto Spiritu.
We shall see further that other signs of reverence prescribed in the old rite have been suppressed in the new.
As a further point to note, I have observed that certain modern musical settings of the Gloria in Excelsis stray from the liturgical text insofar as they include deviations, or repetitions (!) of text already sung. No permission appears to be given for this in the GIRM.
|
|
|
|
Post by melancholicus on Feb 24, 2010 23:05:52 GMT
The CollectThis occurs in both rites, although in the vernacular new rite it is termed the 'opening prayer'. Rev. Anthony Cekada (who is a sedevacantist) maintains in his book The Problems with the Prayers of the Modern Mass (which interestingly is no longer offered for sale by TAN books) that only about 17% of the collects of the traditional missal have survived into the new missal, the majority being either new compositions or derived from other sources. Whatever about this statistic, comparing the propers of the old and new missals side by side will bear much fruit. One cannot fail to be struck by the general absence from the prayers of the new rite of doctrines (sin, judgement, hell, the soul, miracles, the true Church, etc.) deemed likely to be 'offensive' or 'unsuitable' for 'modern man', doctrines which are so clear in the prayers of the old rite. Nor can one fail to be impressed by the extraordinary blandness of the language in which the new collects are couched. In fact I know of one priest, a convert from Anglicanism, who never uses the collects of the ICEL missal when he celebrates Mass, but substitutes the equivalent orations from the Book of Common Prayer—this is a liturgical abuse, of course, but it underlines the problems with the current propers. Cranmer's orations are so rich in comparison. My liturgical comparison is concerned only with the Mass ordinary, so for a comparison with multiple examples of the propers of the old rite with their new rite counterparts in both Latin and English, the reader is referred to Fr. John Zuhlsdorf's blog at wdtprs.com/blog/
|
|
|
|
Post by melancholicus on Feb 24, 2010 23:15:56 GMT
I have had a fairly slow, housebound day today (it's lashing rain and I'm still unemployed), hence the volume of posting.
If this tentative comparison is of benefit to users of this forum, I will continue it tomorrow, picking up with the Mass readings/Lectionary. I would also appreciate comments or corrections; my judgement (as well as my liturgical knowledge) is not infallible.
|
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Feb 25, 2010 7:59:32 GMT
My comments and emphasizes, à la Father Z....  Continued from here: irishcatholics.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=tlm&action=display&thread=39Taking Guillaume's advice, I have started a new thread to compare the old and new rites side by side. This thread is for textual comparison of the two rites; the subject of ethos and ars celebrandi will be considered separately. References to the text of the old rite will be in English for the sake of convenience. Sources:Rubrics of the Missal of 1962: www.sanctamissa.org/en/rubrics/Mass Ordinary of the Missal of 1962: www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/TRIDMASS.TXTGeneral Instruction of the Roman Missal (2002): www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.htmlMass Ordinary of the Missal of Paul VI (1975 edition): www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/mass.htmlAs the revised translation of the 2002 Missal has not yet come into general use, reference to and quotations from the English version of the current ordinary will depend on the translation currently in use. * * * The old and new rites both begin in the same manner, with a blessing: In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. So far so good. Well, in the Old rite, it starts with "In nomine Patri..." - Immediately thereafter, there is a divergence. In the old rite the 'prayers at the foot of the altar' are recited. The priest begins with the versicle, I will go up to the altar of God. Straight away we have to do with sacrifice, for that is the function of an altar. This is the first of many references to sacrifice and oblation in the text of the old rite. Very important ! One of the main critic of the NO : the notion of sacrifice seems to have been diltuted in a notion of a "meal". The altar had become a table (some says an iron board....!). This is followed by the recitation of psalm 42, the Judica me, which again mentions the altar of God (the versicle above is a verse taken from psalm 42). In fact the words I will go up to the altar of God are used no less than three times in the prayers at the foot of the altar. The Judica me is omitted during Passiontide and in Masses for the dead. The new rite begins with a greeting, for which three different options are provided in the missal. Immediately we have to do with a recurrent feature of the new liturgy, namely provision for multiple options at different parts of the Mass. The celebrant is at liberty to choose from these options according to his discretion. This is a feature not only of the Novus Ordo, but of modern liturgy generally; whereas the traditional Catholic and Anglican rites tended to be fixed and stable, with a set text containing few if any options, their modern replacements are characterized by a much greater freedom in the choice of liturgical formulae. This to my mind has generated a fluidity and instability in such rites, and has enormously facilitated the 'creativity' of celebrants and liturgy committees in composing their own 'options' and inserting these unapproved compositions into the liturgical text. Absolutly. NO mass had become a bit of a mess. This liberty is conducting to a serious confusion toward the faithfull who assist a different celebration according to the parish or priest mood... Psalm 42, together with the introductory versicle I will go up to the altar of God did not make it into the text of the new rite. There is nothing inherently sinister in this omission; in fact psalm 42 had been dropped from the Mass Ordinary already in 1965, well before the new rite was imposed. As the tendency after the council was to revise the liturgy in the direction of 'noble simplicity' (but above all to please the protestants) and the practice (as was believed) of the early Church, the use in the Mass of psalm 42—which began life in the Middle Ages as part of the celebrant's private preparation and was not included in the rite until the 13th century—was regarded as an innovation best pruned away. The versicle I will go up to the altar of God survived in the modified traditional rite of Mass until the arrival of the Novus Ordo. Its disappearance from the latter is unfortunate, and is part of a trend. As we progress through the Mass Ordinary of the new rite, we shall see that almost all the references to sacrifice and oblation contained in the old rite have either been dropped or modified. Brilliant initiative ! I am delighted ! Ok, lets start : On Sunday, the Old Mass also starts with the Asperges Me, omited by the Paul VI mass. The priest bless the faithfull with holy water and sing the "asperges me, Domine, hysopo... etc". I am going to illustrate my comments with some videos, so some readers not familiar with the old rite, could have an idea. |
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Feb 25, 2010 8:17:37 GMT
Both the Judica me in the old rite and the greeting in the new are followed by a penitential rite. This takes different forms in each of the two rites. The old rite contains what the liturgical revisers of the 1960s doubtless considered 'useless repetitions' (see Sacrosanctum Concilium, 34), because they changed it. The Confiteor was recited first by the priest (followed by a prayer for forgiveness of the priest's sins by the server/choir), and then recited separately by the server/choir/congregation, after which the priest grants an absolution. This absolution in which all faithfull make a sign of the cross actually forgives venial sins. This dual Confiteor served the purpose of differentiating the priest from the people. The new rite abolished the separate recitation of the Confiteor by first priest, then people, and replaced this arrangement with a common Confiteor to be recited simultaneously by everyone. The text of this Confiteor was modified not only to remove the distinction between priest and people (the priest is now 'brother' rather than 'father') but also to remove reference to St. Michael the Archangel, St. John the Baptist, and Ss Peter and Paul, all of whom were addressed directly in the previous version. The Blessed Virgin Mary survived, IoI although she, together with the angels and saints, is no longer included in the roll of those to whom the people confess; they confess now only to 'almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters'. The Latin fratres, which recurs passim throughout the rite, is regularly translated as 'brothers and sisters', in order to avoid giving offence to feminists. Not an egregious trespass, but a concession to the spirit of the age nonetheless. These little concessions add up, as we shall see. This modified Confiteor need not be recited at all in celebrations of the new rite, and in my experience it is omitted more often than not. Once again, a number of options is available to the celebrant, from which he may choose according to his discretion. Many of these include a modified form of the Kyrie eleison, followed by the absolution. Not to forget the " Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea Maxima culpa". The confiteor increase the feeling of guilt from both the priest and the faitfull. It reminds that we are all sinners. The new liturgy also decreases this feeling. The old formulae reminds us that we are guilty toward God, of course, And the saints, Heaven's population. Regarding the Indulgentiam, I repeat, this is a real absolution. In order to receive the Sacred Host in holy communion, the soul must be in state of grace, without mortal sins. But in order to receive Our Lord in even more purified soul, this absolution remove/forgive the venial sins. This is the reason why the faithfull makes a sign of the cross, same when we receive absolution during the sacrament of penance. This had dissapeared at the new mass (however the absolution still exist though, but nobody does the sign of the cross). |
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Feb 25, 2010 8:23:23 GMT
The old rite follows the dual Confiteor and absolution with a short series of versicles and responses which have not survived into the new rite, although there is an echo of them in one of the penitential options provided ( Lord, show us your mercy and love / and grant us your salvation). The priest then ascends to the altar, reciting two unobtrusive (since they are said in a low voice) but doctrinally significant prayers, the Aufer a nobis and the Oramus te. The first of these beseeches the Most High to 'take away our iniquities, that we may merit to enter with pure minds into the Holy of Holies', recalling the High Priest of the Old Covenant and the sacrificial nature of the Temple ceremonies. The second of these prayers refers to the merits of the saints, and contains direct reference to those saints 'whose relics are here'—namely, the saints whose relics are in the altar stone upon which the Mass is being celebrated. Neither of these prayers is included in the new rite. The Oramus te has been suppressed since in the new rite it is no longer necessary to have an altar stone containing relics of the saints; such has become optional. Therefore there is no necessity for the priest to recite a prayer mentioning the saints 'whose relics are here', as they might very well not be. The unfortunate omission of the altar stone and the prayer which goes with it deprives the rite of reference to the cult of the saints and of merit. It is at this stage, during solemn ceremonies, that the priest bless the incense. He incense the Cross and the altar and himself. |
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Feb 25, 2010 10:31:41 GMT
Kyrie eleisonIn the old rite, this immediately follows the Introit. It is nine-fold, and is recited by the priest with server/choir/congregation alternating as follows: P. Kyrie eleison. R. Kyrie eleison. P. Kyrie eleison. R. Christe eleison. P. Christe eleison. R. Christe eleison. P. Kyrie eleison. R. Kyrie eleison. P. Kyrie eleison. Can be quite tricky at times, and requires concentration! I have fluffed the Kyrie on more than one occasion while serving Mass. Me also.... Getting away from 'useless repetitions', the liturgical revisers reduced the nine-fold Kyrie to the much simpler. P. Kyrie eleison. R. Kyrie eleison. P. Christe eleison. R. Christe eleison. P. Kyrie eleison. R. Kyrie eleison. In the new rite, this Kyrie is omitted if it has already occurred in one of the options selected for the penitential rite. Of course it is much more common in celebrations of the new rite to hear the vernacular Lord have mercy / Christ have mercy than the Greek. The old formulae refers to the Holy Trinity : The first three to God the Father, then the Son and the Holy Spirit. So it is obvious that the Kyrie has to be said 9 times (3 +3 + 3). |
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Feb 25, 2010 10:43:56 GMT
Gloria in Excelsis DeoThe Greater Doxology occurs in both rites, although it is omitted on ferias, during the proper of time in Advent and Lent, in votive Masses and in Masses for the dead. In the new rite the Gloria is also omitted on feasts ranking below the second class. The text of the Gloria is the same in both rites, although the current ICEL translation commonly heard in the new rite is not entirely satisfactory. Absent from the new rite are the bows of the head the celebrant makes to the altar cross at specific points during the recitation of the Gloria—hardly surprising as there is seldom an altar cross in churches where the new rite is commonly celebrated—as well as the sign of the cross he makes when he reaches cum Sancto Spiritu. We shall see further that other signs of reverence prescribed in the old rite have been suppressed in the new. As a further point to note, I have observed that certain modern musical settings of the Gloria in Excelsis stray from the liturgical text insofar as they include deviations, or repetitions (!) of text already sung. No permission appears to be given for this in the GIRM. In most of traditional celebrations, the gloria is sung. While at the NO, it is said (not sung) and in vernacular. Once again, there is no comparison regarding the most joyful part of the mass and the use of an hymn praising the Lord. In this video you can heard an example of the Kyrie and the Gloria sung : |
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Feb 25, 2010 10:51:37 GMT
The CollectThis occurs in both rites, although in the vernacular new rite it is termed the 'opening prayer'. Rev. Anthony Cekada (who is a sedevacantist) maintains in his book The Problems with the Prayers of the Modern Mass (which interestingly is no longer offered for sale by TAN books) that only about 17% of the collects of the traditional missal have survived into the new missal, the majority being either new compositions or derived from other sources. Whatever about this statistic, comparing the propers of the old and new missals side by side will bear much fruit. One cannot fail to be struck by the general absence from the prayers of the new rite of doctrines (sin, judgement, hell, the soul, miracles, the true Church, etc.) deemed likely to be 'offensive' or 'unsuitable' for 'modern man', doctrines which are so clear in the prayers of the old rite. Nor can one fail to be impressed by the extraordinary blandness of the language in which the new collects are couched. In fact I know of one priest, a convert from Anglicanism, who never uses the collects of the ICEL missal when he celebrates Mass, but substitutes the equivalent orations from the Book of Common Prayer—this is a liturgical abuse, of course, but it underlines the problems with the current propers. Cranmer's orations are so rich in comparison. My liturgical comparison is concerned only with the Mass ordinary, so for a comparison with multiple examples of the propers of the old rite with their new rite counterparts in both Latin and English, the reader is referred to Fr. John Zuhlsdorf's blog at wdtprs.com/blog/ I also have a book called The Problem of the New Mass by Doctor Rama P. Coomaraswam. Very interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 1, 2010 13:03:01 GMT
Rama P Coomaraswamy was a very odd bird, he received (or claimed to have received) priestly orders illicitly while still living with his wife, and he has been credibly accused of being a "perennialist" rather than an orthodox Catholic. (Alasdair will explain this; basically it's neo-gnosticism). I would be very wary of him.
|
|
