Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [liturgy-l] Re: Mumbling and Gesturing (An aside to Concelebration)

Expand Messages
  • James O'Regan
    ... This comment is well palced not only for concelebration but for other secret considerations, like covering up the preparation of the gifts in RC
    Message 1 of 167 , Oct 2, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Brian Bennett wrote and I snipped:

      > It seems to me that just mumbling along and making discrete
      > gestures is opposite the procalmation that should be embodied in the
      > Eucharist.

      This comment is well palced not only for concelebration but for other
      "secret" considerations, like covering up the preparation of the
      gifts in RC tradition with song. proclamation ought to be the driving
      force of liturgical voice.

      For concelebration, the US document shows similar consideration at
      paras 24 to 35. The basic position is simplicity and clarity and
      allowing for a discernable single voice, either that of the presider
      or that of the group in unison.

      The matter of discrete gesture is an interesting one, totally
      contingent on execution. If it works well, it ought to be perceived
      as a single actiomn in chorus, which can be a powerful act
      consistent with a great proclamation though gesture. But it must work
      well, which is clearly entrenched in the US document.

      I think the vocal considerations in the US document more or less
      strive for proclamation too. It does allow for sotto voce
      particiaption but, in actual practice, I think this is very hard to
      pull off. The human face in action is just too powerful an event. Any
      sloppiness can reduce its effect. And while the document addresses
      the problem, I would urge a review of the practice. Gestures in
      chorus are much more forgiving than words.


      James O'Regan
      http://www.jamesoregan.com
      tel 613-824-4706
    • Frank Senn
      Concelebration in the ancient church entailed the presbyters surrounding the bishop at a pontifical celebration.  It did not include the presbyters being a
      Message 167 of 167 , Mar 7 2:31 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Concelebration in the ancient church entailed the presbyters surrounding the bishop at a pontifical celebration.  It did not include the presbyters being a speech choir or dividing portions of the eucharistic prayer, as become common just after Vatican II.  Solemn high mass is simply the ancient form of celebration with deacon, subdeacon, and other ministers carrying out various ministerial roles.  Low mass meant a single priest with a server.  There could be concelebration at a solemn mass, as we see in some of the Ordines Romani.  But in antiquity that was not because presbyters took the diaconal roles.  It was became the presbyteral college attended the bishop at his celebration.

        Frank C. Senn

        --- On Wed, 3/7/12, dlewisaao@... <dlewisaao@...> wrote:

        From: dlewisaao@... <dlewisaao@...>
        Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Concelebration
        To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Wednesday, March 7, 2012, 11:25 AM

         

        My understanding is that the solemn high mass form came in response to abuses in concelebration in the earlier Church.  Priests were going to the more prestigious parishes to concelebrate there, neglecting their own less prestigious cures.  The solemn high mass personnel requirements were designed to keep this from happening.
         
        David
         
        ---------------------------
        David Lewis
        dlewisaao@...
         
        In a message dated 3/7/2012 10:11:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, cowling.douglas@... writes:


        On 3/7/12 8:11 AM, "Sean Reed" <anglican@...> wrote:

        An interesting article about concelebration:

        "...concelebration, in the genuine tradition of the Church, whether eastern or western, is an extraordinary, solemn and public rite, normally presided over by the Bishop or his delegate, surrounded by his presbyterium and by the entire community of the faithful.But the daily concelebrations of priests only ... do not form part of the Latin liturgical tradition..."

        If the “genuine tradition” is the 1962 Missal alone, then you would have a case. But the more ancient custom of concelebration as a sign of the unity of the church is a much deeper tradition across east and west.  The old high mass with its many ministers (deacon, subdeacon, acolytes) is not just ceremonial elaboration, but a metaphor of the church in its many charisms celebrating as a community.

        The animus against concelebration boiled up at the Second Vatican Council where opponents advanced the numerical argument that the church lost sacramental graces when there was concelebration. Cardinal Spellman’s theologian famously said that, when 100 priests concelebrated, the church was short 99 masses.

        Concelebration is a powerful symbol of unity. I remember attending the capitular mass at the Benedictine Abbey of St. Benoit-du-Lac near Montreal. At the offertory, all the priests of the community (there must have been 30 of them) quietly came to the altar and stood in a semi-circle behind the altar. Their verbal participation and gestures were discreet and unobstrusive.  But the sense of commonality was palpable — richer and more generous than 60 years ago when they would have all gone invisibly into closets to mutter private masses.

        Sharing the spotlight is a salutary clerical discipline in addition to expressing a deeper sacramental ecclesiology.

        As a sidebar about clerical spotlights .. I have encounter opposition to concelebration among most Anglican priests, few of which would articulate an opinion on the multiplication of masses.  

        Doug Cowling
        Director of Music
        St. Philip's Church, Etobicoke
        Toronto



      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.