|
 |
Continuation
of:
The
Use of Rubrics in Liturgical Celebration
Edited
by the Rev. Msgr. Keith Patrick Steinhurst, P.A.
from
a larger piece written by the Rev. Lawrence Yates
for
the Latin Mass Society's February 2000 Newsletter
...worthy
of the Sublime, then everything is important: each gesture, each
vestment, and each step. And this is why respect for the rubrics is
important. It has nothing to do, as is so often supposed, with
formalism or a cold legalism. The spirit created the rite so as to
become communicable through the rite. The worship of God in spirit
but without any exterior rite is thus a self-contradiction. Where
there is no rite there is no adoration, only chaos.
The rubrics do not stop with the clergy. They are of equal concern
to the servers. As there is only one way to say Mass, there is also
only one way to serve Mass. The dignity of the ceremony is disturbed
by poor pronunciation of Latin, by slovenly gestures and by an
apparent unconcern for what is taking place at the altar. An almost
military precision is required when two persons are involved in a
similar movement. Two servers must bow or genuflect together. It is
for this reason that I strongly advocate strict adherence to the
rubrics that require only one server in a low Mass. Likewise, the
deacon and sub-deacon, when changing places during the course of a
High Mass, should synchronize their genuflections. The training of
servers is a serious responsibility requiring time and patience. Here
again I repeat that reasons for all movements should be given.
Correct training produces life-long good habits, but poor training
will never rectify itself. The best way to acquire an understanding
of ceremonial is to watch the Army. Indeed all Masters of Ceremonies
would benefit from a spell on a military parade ground! The practice
of servers standing for the Creed seems to stem from a preference to
follow the congregation rather than the rubrics. The abominable habit
of sitting during the distribution of Holy Communion has been dealt
with in a previous article, but I make no apology for repeating it
here. If active participation as taught so energetically by Pius XII
and Vatican Council II is to be achieved, the congregation cannot be
freed from the rubrics. Although they do not bind the laity in the
same way as they bind the clergy, they are, at least, guidelines that
ensure full participation in the external rite and thus help towards
raising the mind and heart to God - the essence of prayer. Low Mass,
because of the way in which it developed, is a quiet and private
ceremony, although still very much part of the public worship of the
Church. The priest encourages the laity with 'Dominus vobiscum' and
'Orate fratres'.
There are no rules for the laity. It is customary to kneel
throughout except for the Gospel and Creed. As Pius XII taught, they
are to take part in the Mass by using whatever method they find most
useful. The 'dialogue Mass' is an attempt to bring the laity from
private devotions into co- operation with the celebrant.
Even
so, Pius XII, while encouraging this method of celebration, writes
in Mediator Dei:
Moreover the 'dialogue' Mass cannot be substituted for the solemn
High Mass; this, even though celebrated with only the sacred
ministers present, has a dignity all its own by reason of the
solemnity of its rites and the splendor of its ceremonies; although
such splendor and solemnity are greatly enhanced if, as the Church
earnestly desires, a large and devout congregation assists at it.
With this description we reach the pinnacle of ceremonial.
Originally there was a Pontifical High Mass celebrated by the bishop
surrounded by his clergy and laity. As Christianity spread and
dioceses became enlarged, this was no longer possible for everybody.
The solemn High Mass developed where the honors afforded to the
bishop were transferred to the celebrant. We must be quite clear at
this point that although the deacon and sub-deacon are usually,
nowadays, ordained priests, there is no question here of
concelebration. The ministers, as their title suggests, are simply
the principal assistants to the celebrant, and should they receive
Holy Communion they do so from the hand of the celebrant in the form
of Bread alone. Following the large increase in parishes with
insufficient clergy, of which this country was a good example, the
sung Mass was introduced. This form of Mass is nothing other than a
solemn Mass without deacon and sub-deacon. The acolytes serve as
ministers to the celebrant and the MC, as far as possible, replaces
the deacon. The ceremonial and the rubrics remain the same.
A solemn Mass is not a theatrical production nor is it a musical
extravaganza. It is, Mgr Schmitz tells us, what the Church, after a
long process, has established as the highest worship of Almighty God.
It is better, therefore, to avoid ceremonial until these requirements
can be met. We cannot pick and choose. I was horrified, on one
occasion, to read of a 'mini sung Mass'. Such a ceremony does not
exist. We claim to follow tradition and therefore it is the
traditional rules that we must observe. We cannot pick and choose
which parts of the Mass we will sing. This is permitted during a low
Mass where the celebrant is in no way involved, and such singing does
not disturb the rite of Low Mass. If, however, the celebrant is to
sing at all, we are immediately governed by the rubrics pertaining to
a solemn Mass. Everything that is sung in a solemn Mass MUST also be
sung in a Missa Cantata, including the Proper. The rubrics do not
deal in options and if we fail to adhere to these rules we fall into
the ways of modern liturgists in producing hybrid ceremonies. The
hidden danger is that in trying to enhance, as we think, the beauty
of the altar or the dignity of the ceremony, we can in fact offend
against liturgical law. Two simple examples of this are the use of
more candles than is permitted for a particular ceremony and the
overcrowding of the altar with flowers. At no time should flowers
stand on the altar-table itself.
Not long ago it was decided in a church of my acquaintance, which is
usually very correct, that the great feast of the Resurrection could
be more fittingly celebrated by throwing off the tabernacle veil and
displaying a bright shining door and also by lighting two sanctuary
lamps. Both of these actions fell foul of the law. While we are not
limited to a single sanctuary lamp, there is a numerical restriction
to 1, 3, or 5.
There is a tendency today to think that we of the 20th century (it
may be even more so in the 21st) are far more knowledgeable than our
ancestors. In the realms of technology, medicine, etc., this is
undoubtedly true, but it is not the 20th century which is referred to
as the 'age of faith'. It was during that age that the great
cathedrals and abbeys were built and our ceremonies developed.
However backward our ancestors may have been, they certainly knew
something about the worship of God.
Authority must guide us. I can understand the aim to get as close to
a solemn ceremony as possible, but this will not do. We must ask
ourselves whether these ceremonies are for our own satisfaction or
are intended for a genuine and serious worship of God. If the latter,
then we must be prepared to be guided by the authority of the Church
and we must follow the traditional rubrics to the letter. If we
cannot do this, such ceremonies should be postponed until sufficient
training has been given to enable all concerned to play the parts
allotted to them for the greater glory of God. A Low Mass celebrated
with due decorum will have more spiritual benefit than an
ill-prepared solemn function. Poor performance, from altar or choir,
can be a severe distraction for the laity and defeats the whole
purpose of the liturgy. In complete contrast to a low Mass, the
sanctuary, in a High Mass becomes a hive of activity, and this quite
naturally spills over into the congregation. Even fifty years ago a
solemn High Mass was to many something of a rarity. It was so
different from what usually happened that it could not possibly
involve the laity who became spectators. This is not the mind of the
Church. The congregation is expected to follow the rules laid down
for the clergy when they are present in choir on the sanctuary. These
rules are not difficult to follow, but there is a reluctance to have
our accustomed procedures disturbed and to accept that standing and
sitting can have equal value with kneeling in the appropriate places.
The greatest hesitation appears to be with regard to standing,
especially after the Consecration, in a High Mass. Let us recall to
mind that the celebrant stands throughout in a low Mass and all the
servers stand for the greater part of a High Mass. Perhaps St. John
may be more convincing when he relates in the Apocalypse: After this
I saw a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations
and tribes and peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and
in the sight of the Lamb, clothed with white robes and palms in their hands.
Perhaps a few well-versed members of the congregation could be
persuaded to take up positions in the front benches to give the lead.
It is liturgically inappropriate for such directions to be given from
the sanctuary. Many years ago a well-known xylophonist, while playing
popular melodies of the day used to shout "Sing". It was a
successful operation and certainly achieved its aim in securing
audience participation, but I cannot recommend the practice for a
liturgical function.
The
basic rules for the laity are as follows:
STAND
for entrance procession and Asperges, if such should take place.
KNEEL
for the prayers at the foot of the altar.
STAND
when the ministers ascend the steps to the altar.
SIT
when the celebrant sits for the Gloria (see note below).
(continue
to page 3 of the article)
RETURN
TO THE ARTICLES INDEX
Main
Page | Supreme Pontiff | Members
| Papal Orders
Christian
Orders | Religious Orders | Links
|
